Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Economic Community

Sir R. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertaking was given to the Australian Government in the negotiations with the Six to ask for a transitional period before applying the common external tariff against Australian primary produce in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further arrangements he proposes

to seek in relation to Australia in his negotiations with the European Economic Community.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): There have been full consultations with all Commonwealth countries. No specific undertakings were given to Australia, but the Australian Government were told that Her Majesty's Government would do their best to secure the longest possible transitional arrangements for Commonwealth countries.
It has been agreed in the negotiations that the Community's Common External Tariff should be applied over a transitional period from 1973 to 1977. These provisions would apply to Australian primary produce covered by the Common External Tariff. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have secured from the Community the explicit recognition that they would take rapid action should there be a denger of serious disruption of trade during that period.

Sir R. Russell: Would my right hon. Friend explain how a misunderstanding seems to have arisen between his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Douglas Anthony, who seems to have gone away very sore about undertakings which he expected to get? Will my right hon. Friend use his great influence to restore normal relations with the Australian Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. There was no intention whatever to mislead and, I think, no grounds for being misled, because, as I said, no promise was given. We have tried to get the longest possible transitional arrangement and we have succeeded in getting one for five years.

Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many hon. Members are deeply disturbed about the attitude which the Australian Government have taken on this matter and that some of us who have been to Australia think that the Australians have some ground for it? Will my right hon. Friend personally given an assurance that he will look into this and try to rectify some of the obvious ill-feeling which has arisen?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked into it. I will certainly try to rectify any misgivings which may have arisen.

Mr. Healey: Has the Foreign Secretary's attention been drawn to a letter by the Deputy High Commissioner of Australia in last Saturday's Economist suggesting that, if there were not a misunderstanding, there was a complete difference of opinion between the two Governments about what Her Majesty's Government's obligations had been in their undertaking on 22nd April and the way in which they had subsequently behaved?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have seen that letter, of course. There were consultations with the Commonwealth High Commissioners after every meeting in Brussels, and on 22nd April it was of course known that we were to accept the Community's preference system. It is a matter of explaining to the Australian Government exactly what the pledges were. As I said earlier, I will try to contribute to that explanation.

Mr. Healey: Is it not extraordinary that long after the event it should be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to explain to the Australian Government what pledges had been given at a meeting on 22nd April and whether action they took a month later without subsequent consultations with the Australian Government was consistent with those pledges?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. The reason one must explain is that there have been misunderstandings. I do not think that there was any ground for misunderstanding. On 22nd April it was clear that we were to accept the Community's preference system.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he has obtained about the economic future of the European Free Trade Association countries who do not seek to enter the Common Market; and what bankable guarantees he was given about their ability to trade with Great Britain in the future, without any discrimination against them on the same terms as under the European Free Trade Association agreement.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what safeguards have been secured in the European Economic Community negotiations against any re-erection of trade barriers between the United Kingdom and those European Free Trade Association states not applying for European Economic Community membership.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): The nature of the relations between European Free Trade Association non-applicants and the Community is a matter for their respective governments, but we hope that the arrangements which they conclude will avoid the re-erection of trade barriers as a consequence of enlargement of the Community. Our obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners remain as stated in the E.F.T.A. Communiqué of 28th April, 1967, published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 1st May, 1967.—[Vol. 746, c. 87–8.]

Mrs. Short: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that, in my Question, I ask about bankable guarantees that trade barriers will not be erected between us and our E.F.T.A. partners? All that the hon. Gentleman has given is a repetition of the pious hopes contained in the White Paper, and they do not take us any further. Is he aware that there is growing pressure in Denmark and Norway against entry into the Market and that those Governments require considerable majorities in their Parliaments, to be followed


by referenda? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the latest news from Sweden is that the people of that country are becoming more and more disenchanted with the idea of association and that there is great concern about the effect of entry on our E.F.T.A. partners and about the effect on our own foreign trade?

Mr. Royle: I am always interested to hear any news that the hon. Lady has received. As I made clear in my original Answer, all members of E.F.T.A. are either negotiating for entry into the Community or holding discussions with the Community about their relations with it.

Mrs. Short: We know that.

Mr. Royle: The discussions with those who are not candidates for full membership have not gone very far. But, now that we have broken the back of our own negotiations, we hope that those of the non-candidates will make progress towards getting the type of arrangement that they all seek.

Mr. Hayhoe: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will treat the E.F.T.A. countries rather better than did the previous Government who, without consultation, unilaterally imposed a surcharge damaging to their exports?

Mr. Royle: This Government will always treat their friends well.

Mrs. Short: Tell that to the Commonwealth.

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations for British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for Great Britain to join the European Economic Community.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The results of the major issues resolved in the negotiations are set out in full in the White Paper laid before the House last week.

Mr. Moate: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the remaining negotiations

will cover regional policies, and will he comment on reports that plans now being made in Brussels will compel a major change in our regional policies involving a return to investment grants and a reduction in certain areas to a maximum level of grant of 20 per cent.?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can hardly comment on the latest proposal. It is a proposal which has been put forward by the Commission. I do not think that it has been received by the Council of Ministers, which will have to consider it and which may take any action on it, even sending it back to the Commission for review. It is too early to talk about that.
As an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency, I must say that I am extremely interested in regional policies. Sometimes I think that the Community is more conscious of the importance of regional policies than we are and that from its policies a great deal of advantage might come to our regions.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that the terms which have emerged from the negotiations have received a very different reception from leaders of Socialist Parties on the Continent from the tepid condemnation in that very sad broadcast of the Leader of the Opposition on Friday?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that I must leave out the Leader of the Opposition until I know a little more clearly what is his view. Certainly the regional policies have been welcomed by all the countries which benefit from them within the Community.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the last time that a version of a White Paper was issued free through the Post Office? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to allow a statement opposing entry to the Common Market also to be issued free through the Post Office?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend will be answering a Question on that point later.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend like me to send to my hon.


Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who asked the original Question on regional development, a very interesting letter which I have had from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Would it not be better, and eminently more satisfactory, to try to find out, before asking Questions of that kind, what our people have in mind?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that my hon. Friend was only seeking additional information.

Mr. Healey: As a Scottish Member will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether it is still the Government's intention to reach a decision on the Common Market fisheries policy before the House is finally asked to approve entry in November?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend is talking about fishing policy in Brussels today. I hope that he will soon be able to make a statement.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement with regard to negotiations with the European Economic Community, in particular in regard to its fisheries policy.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add at present to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on 24th June. Fisheries is one of the subjects being discussed at the Ministerial meeting today and, with permission, my right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement on this meeting later this week.—[Vol. 819, c. 1609–10.]

Mr. Baker: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend has seen the divergent Press reports today on this question, and may I suggest that, in order to prevent a great deal of anxiety within the fishing industry, the 1964 Fisheries Convention is reconvened as a basis for a settlement of this very difficult question?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As my hon. Friend knows, we have told the Community that its fishing scheme is not acceptable for an enlarged Community. I take note of what my hon. Friend said about the Fisheries Convention.

Mr. Grimond: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Community's present policy is not acceptable. Will he give an assurance that we shall accept no terms about fisheries which are less favourable than those offered to the Norwegians?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that we had better await the return of my right hon. and learned Friend to see what discussions have been going on in Brussels today. The right hon. Gentleman knows that our present fishing arrangements are not comparable with those of the Norwegians. In other words, we allow certain European countries to fish for certain types of fish between the six and 12-mile limits.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend recall that on frequent occasions the Government have said that we must know where we stand with regard to the fisheries regulations before this House is asked to come to a decision on the matter? May we be assured that that remains the Government's policy?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That would certainly be our ambition, but I think that we had better await the return of my right hon. and learned Friend in a couple of days, when he will be able to give us a fuller account of the discussions that have taken place.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making for the widest possible public understanding of the White Paper on the European Economic Community negotiations.

Mr. Anthony Royle: I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the White Paper is already attracting the very considerable publicity the Government would wish it to receive.

Mr. Lane: Is my hon. Friend aware that the issue of the short version of the White Paper will be very welcome indeed? In view of the gradual movement of public opinion in favour of British entry, will my hon. Friend confirm that he and his colleagues will take every opportunity during the next few weeks of putting the complete picture to the public, because many of us have found that constituents who previously were sceptical, when presented will all the arguments for and


against are quick to see the advantages of joining?

Mr. Royle: All these matters will be discussed during the debate in the House next week. The shortened version of the White Paper is to be distributed in the same way as the Government's Fact Sheets on Britain and Europe, including being made available free of charge at Post Offices. It will be available from today.

Mr. John Mendelson: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that on the day after the publication of the full White Paper The Guardian devoted to it two full pages of comment by Hella Pick and its economics correspondent, who dealt with it under two headings, one pointing out what the White Paper did not say and the other what it left out? Would it not be more advisable, before publishing even the shortened version, for the Government to publish a complete version, including some of the facts that are required before the debate starts?

Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not responsible for what The Guardian prints. If he has any matters to raise that he feels are not covered in the White Paper he will no doubt be able to refer to them in the debate.

Mr. Montgomery: As this is a vitally important decision that we must take, and in the interests of fairness, since the Government are allowing the free distribution of the simplified version of the White Paper in post offices, will they provide similar facilities to anti-Common Market people who want to put forward their point of view?

Mr. Royle: No, Sir.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that depth surveys of public opinion show conclusively that the more a person knows about the Common Market the likelier he is to support our entry?

Mr. Royle: I wholeheartedly agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which Community Institutions Her Majesty's Government will participate fully on the date of accession to the European Economic Community.

Mr. Anthony Royle: In the negotiations it has been agreed that the United Kingdom should participate from the date of accession in the Institutions of the Communities with a position equal to that enjoyed by France, Germany and Italy. These Institutions axe the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the European Court of Justice.

Sir A. Meyer: Is this not a very satisfactory outcome? Does it not mean that from the moment of accession Britain will be able to influence policies and avert the adoption of policies which might otherwise be unhelpful to this country, even if she were outside the Community?

Mr. Royle: I fully agree with my hon. Friend's comments. This is a very satisfactory outcome.

Mr. Heffer: Does not the Minister agree that at the moment certain policies which the Commission is putting forward—for example, the regional policy—could badly affect areas like Merseyside? Does not he agree that it is not a question of some future date; could we not know now what is happening on these vital issues, which, if our people did know about them, they would certainly reject, in terms of regional policy?

Mr. Royle: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the question of regional policies arises from a proposal that is being put forward by the Commission in Brussels, and therefore no decision has been taken. The other questions that the hon. Member raises are all points that he can raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy on his return from Brussels.

Mr. Healey: Can the Minister explain why Her Majesty's Government have left out from their large White Paper the figure showing the effect on our balance of payments of the changes in tariffs caused by our entry into the Common Market—especially since the last Government gave an estimate of between £250 million and £300 million? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the present Government are said to have had the same figure in their White Paper but to have taken it out because of political pressure brought to bear by some members of the Cabinet?

Mr. Royle: To do justice to the right hon. Gentleman, none of these questions is relevant to the original Question put to me. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the White Paper produced by his Government gave such a wide range of guesses that no one could possibly understand what was involved.

Mr. Healey: With great respect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have a four-day debate on these matters. Mr. Healey.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order. Is it not in the interests of an intelligent debate that the House should have as much information as possible as to the terms before the debate takes place, especially since the Minister has just made a statement contrary to the facts in respect of the effect of tariff changes? This was given within a bracket of £50 million by the last Government, and a similar figure was prepared for the present Government but suppressed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman rose to a point of order. I have already called him to ask a supplementary question, after I have pointed out that we are to have a debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his supplementary question?

Mr. Healey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for misunderstanding your very kind advice to me. May I ask the Minister whether the bracket given by the last Government in their White Paper last year was not a wide one? The figure was given as between £250 million and £300 million. Is it not the case that a similar figure was prepared for inclusion in this White Paper but omitted as a result of the political fears of some members of the Cabinet?

Mr. Royle: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not possible for me to reply to detailed questions at this stage. The matters which he has raised this afternoon can be referred to in the debate next week.

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Commonwealth Governments have expressed opposition to Great Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: None, Sir. Whilst a very few Commonwealth countries have commented on details of the arrangements arrived at in the negotiations, none has suggested that these constituted grounds on which the United Kingdom should not join the Communites.

Mr. Spence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but it would help us a lot if he were prepared to say whether he has had any unofficial expressions of opposition to the terms of our entry from any significant political group within the Commonwealth?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot answer in respect of unofficial communications; I am concerned with official communications. I will try to get some information, but I do not think that it will help my hon. Friend very much.

Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in this country and throughout the Commonwealth consider that these negotiations are a battle that Britain has lost and that the White Paper constitutes an approach by the Government suing for peace? Since grave apprehensions are held by people throughout the Commonwealth, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider having discussions with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to see whether there should not be a special conference of Commonwealth countries to discuss many things about which they are gravely apprehensive?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman is an artist at putting his own opinion in the mouths of millions of others.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Australia's export earnings he estimates would be at risk as a result of British entry into the European Economic Community.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The value of Australian exports which could be affected by enlargement of the European Economic Community, on the basis of 1969–70 figures, is at most 7½ per cent. of her total export earnings.

Mr. Redmond: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he agree that


the figures seem remarkably small? Would not many people be liable to ask what all the fuss is about? Cannot my right hon. Friend also tell the House what extra opportunities would be available to Australian exports as a result of our joining the Community?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The figures may be small, but to Australia they can be important. The butter and sugar exports are even smaller—about 1·1 per cent. I would have thought that with the increased size of the European Community and the comparatively low external tariff, Australia should have many opportunities for selling to this big market.

Mr. Bob Brown: Assuming that we do not go into the European Economic Community, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall have to have a sharp look at the position in which Australia is exporting to us tariff-free while we have to overcome tariff barriers in our exports to Australia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the hon. Member hints, the erosion of preferences started with the Commonwealth countries who wanted to manufacture their own goods. Certainly we should have had to have regard in the future to all Commonwealth trading arrangements.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there was surprisingly little complaint from Australia until recently, when they were nearing an election? Since on every occasion when Australia has wished to manufacture her own goods she has put on large tariffs against our exports, and has used factories in her own country and elsewhere, would it not be more reasonable to accept that both countries should do their best for each other by being as rich as possible?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I could not agree with the assumption that he made at the beginning of it.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth Governments

relating to the agreement on British entry into the European Economic Community reached at Luxembourg.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Commerce has expressed concern about the effect of some of Australia's exports of the agreement reached; no other Commonwealth Government has made representations on this subject.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it not clear that the very last thing that the Commonwealth as a whole wants now is for Britain's entry to fail? Is the Minister aware that many of the complaints made about terms, allegedly on behalf of Commonwealth interests, are neither asked for nor wanted by the Commonwealth countries themselves?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is true that many Commonwealth countries—in fact, all of them, I believe—recognise that, unless she increases her strength, Britain is not much use to them. Therefore, they do support our entry into the Market.

Mr. Marten: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in regard to Australia, whatever the percentage of exports concerned—7 per cent. was mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond)—it is a human and social problem that we are talking about for these farmers and sugar growers?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, that is true. That is why the Chancellor of the Duchy went to such pains to get the Community's agreement that, should vital interests be affected, they would deal with them.

Foreign Embassies (Espionage Activities)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to reduce the number of diplomatic staff in foreign embassies in Great Britain suspected of engaging primarily on espionage activities.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When there is firm evidence that a foreign diplomat in London has engaged in espionage, the Head of the Mission concerned is normally asked to withdraw him. From


time to time we have made representations to certain Governments on this subject.

Mr. Hamilton: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the expulsion of British diplomats from Moscow recently was not because they were engaged in espionage but was simply a counter-measure to action which we had taken? Further, could he give any figures to indicate an increase in the number of diplomats in the embassies of particularly Eastern European countries and the Communist bloc over the last ten years?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can give an absolute assurance that the action taken by the Soviet Union in respect of our diplomats was purely retaliatory—there was no ground for it. In the last eighteen months, there has been a noticeable increase in embassy staff. Three members of the Soviet Embassy have been removed at our request and we have had to decline to issue visas for five more. I have taken this up with the Soviet Government.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: What action is being taken to reduce the gross disparity between the number of Eastern European and Soviet diplomats, or so-called diplomats, in this country and of our diplomats in theirs?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have this matter under close consideration all the time. I should not like to say any more about it at the moment. These matters can best be settled in a friendly way with the Soviet Government.

Rhodesia

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Rhodesia.

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he now has to visit Rhodesia.

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the visit of Lord Goodman to Rhodesia.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now pay an official visit to Rhodesia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no plans to visit Rhodesia at present. Lord Goodman has visited Rhodesia at my request to engage in exploratory discussions. As I have told the House, I shall make a statement when there is something of substance to report. As I have often said, any settlement would have to be within the five principles.

Mr. Davis: Having regard to the constantly totalitarian and racist behaviour of the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what possible credence he could give to any pledge by that Government to honour the five principles? Having regard to that behaviour, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be best if these talks, official, unofficial, or whatever they are, were called off at once?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman might have put that question to his right hon. Friend some time ago.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are glad to know that he has made plain his approval of the wise words of a wise statesman, Sir Roy Welensky, that, inevitably, this society will lead to an apartheid-type society? Since the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to see black helots or slaves administered by a white minority, is he aware that we are glad to hear him say that he will stand by the five principles and not settle on any other terms?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Our obligation, as far as we can discharge it, is to the Europeans and the Africans in Rhodesia. That is why a settlement must be within the framework of the five principles that we have made.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the fact that Rhodesia effectively has been independent for 48 years and that for the last seven we have tried unsuccessfully to pretend otherwise, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might not be a bad idea to consider the possibility of recognising that, if the Rhodesians wish to risk the prospect of a blood bath in


10, 20, 30 or 40 years, it is no business of ours?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the general opinion in the House is that at least we should try to bring Rhodesia to legality. That is the whole purpose of the negotiations.

Mr. Healey: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reassertion of his determination to ensure that the five principles are complied with, including the fifth, which would meet the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will take no decision about changing the Government's relations with Rhodesia before the House has a chance to consider the proposals that are in mind?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: All Governments must always reserve the right to take decisions when they like. I have promised that I shall come to the House and make a statement the moment that there is anything of substance to report. That might well be on the approach to a decision.

Mr. Healey: I can well understand that, but I hope that, in view of the deep interest and concern on both sides of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that he will take no decision about changing the relations of Her Majesty's Government with Rhodesia while the House is in recess. The right hon. Gentleman gave a similar undertaking last year with regard to arms for South Africa. This matter is of equal importance to our relations with the whole of Africa, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a similar assurance.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate about what I said in relation to South Africa. No Government can possibly pledge themselves as to when they will or will not take a decision. What I can say is that, before anyone else knows about the decision, that decision will be brought to this House.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the future of the Rhodesian

sanctions Royal Air Force detachment in Malagasy.

Mr. Kershaw: The Government of the Malagasy Republic have confirmed that they would like the Royal Air Force detachment at Majunga to be withdrawn. Exchanges with the Malagasy Government about the timing and other implications of their request are continuing.

Sir F. Bennett: On the assumption that this patrol has been performing an invaluable function in enforcing sanctions, commensurate with its cost, can my hon. Friend say how this blockade is to continue without it, and what alternative plans he has to replace it?

Mr. Kershaw: It is true that this detachment has been helpful for patrol purposes and that its disappearance will naturally make the operation more difficult, but I think that the question of what, if anything, should be put in its place is for my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence.

Mr. Healey: As the Government have decided to run on the aircraft carrier for another few years, would not this be a very good use for it? This is a rôle which it could usefully perform, whereas it has no useful rôle in the Mediterranean or North Atlantic.

Mr. Kershaw: That, too, is obviously a question for my noble Friend.

Malta

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about relations with Malta.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Since the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 1st July, there have been further exchanges with the Prime Minister of Malta, and our High Commissioner returned to Valletta on 7th July after his consultations with me.
The Government have agreed, at the request of the Malta Government, to suspend the planned changeover between the present battalion in Malta and the Royal Marines Commando Group which was due to replace it this month.—[Vol. 820, c. 578–80.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do not many of us who know Dom Mintoff like to remember


the time when he wanted to get closer to Britain? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the time might have come when a Minister should go to Malta so that we can have some reciprocity in plain speaking? Meanwhile, may we be told whether the defence agreement is still fully effective?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes". The defence agreement is still effective. Certainly I shall consider the possibility of a Minister going out to talk to Mr. Dom Mintoff about the review of the defence agreement that he has requested. But the defence agreement is effective now.

Peaceful Uses of the Seabed

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish as a White Paper the proposals which he plans to advance at the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Seabed in relation to the entrenched rights of coastal States within the proposed trusteeship area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): No, Sir. As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 10th May, much detailed work remains to be done on this subject and it would not be feasible to set out our ideas in full in a a White Paper. But I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an outline of what our general attitude will be to the position of coastal States in relation to the trusteeship area.—[Vol. 817, c. 27.]

Mr. Archer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Does the Answer of 10th May mean that the Government propose that, in addition to sovereign rights over territorial waters, there shall be entrenched rights over the area beyond? Is that not abdicating international control over two-thirds of the earth's surface, which is already potentially an arsenal, a gold mine and a sewer?

Mr. Kershaw: No, Sir. I do not think that that is fair. We support the principle that the resources of the seabed should be

regarded as a common heritage. We believe that the trusteeship concept, which we support, will give rights both to coastal States and to the international community, which is not inconsistent with that principle.

Following is the information :
We consider that the entrenched rights of the coastal States within the trusteeship area must include all necessary jurisdiction over such matters as the licensing of activities in connection with the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the area and the supervision and legal protection of such activities. There are a number of aspects of the United States draft Sea Bed Convention, in which the trusteeship concept was proposed, on which the British Government would wish to put forward other proposals. These would be based on the contents of the working paper tabled by the United Kingdom at the August 1970 Session of the United Nations Sea Bed Committee. It will be remembered that the United States Government introduced their draft as a basis for discussion and expressly stated that it did not necessarily represent their definitive views.

South Africa (Arms Supply)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will make no decision regarding the supplying of further armaments to the South African Government while the House of Commons is in Recess.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what orders for maritime arms have now been made by the South African Government; and what reply has been sent.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No new orders have been received for maritime arms. As I have said, the House will be informed of any decision to enter into any new arms deal with South Africa covering categories outside those comprised in my statement of 22nd February.—[Vol. 812. c. 34–42.]

Mr. Healey: I welcome that reply. Will the Foreign Secretary be a little clearer and be prepared to say, as he did in answer to my earlier question about Rhodesia, that, whatever decision the Government may take, the House will be the first body to be informed of such a decision and that therefore no decision Will be published during the recess? Secondly, will he tell us whether the


Government's attitude on the supply of further arms to South Africa will depend on South Africa's pressure on the Rhodesian Government for a settlement satisfactory to the British Government of the Rhodesian problem?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I propose that the first statement about additional arms to South Africa should be made to the House.
On the second part of his question, whether we shall sell more arms to South Africa depends not at all on a Rhodesian settlement but on our assessment of British interests.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that, for obvious reasons, the South African Government never ask for orders in this country until they have been assured that they will get export licences? Will my right hon. Friend tell us, for example, whether, if they wanted Nimrods, export licences would be available?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have not got a request for Nimrods. My hon. Friend is right about the procedure. A request comes and then the British Government reply whether they will give an export licence, and the licence is not given for some time. For example, licences have not yet been issued for the helicopters, because they have not been asked for.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether any talks are to be held with the two South African officials who are today visiting a Yarrow shipyard and who were reported on the B.B.C. this morning as being very eager to have discussions about the further purchase of frigates?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have heard nothing of this matter, but I will look into it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the arguments in favour of the supply of these arms in the interests of our own defence are now stronger or weaker than they were when advocated a year or two ago by the then Foreign Secretary and the then Secretary of State for Defence?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As my right hon. Friend knows, we are always concerned

about the defence of the Indian Ocean and the sea routes, and the arguments for this have become stronger. We also measure the question whether we sell more arms to South Africa by the necessity to keep to the Simonstown Agreement.

Namibia (International Court Ruling)

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement of Government policy on The Hague International Court ruling on Namibia, South-West Africa.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the judgment of the International Court of Justice, whether he will make a statement on British policy towards Namibia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa and the separate and dissenting opinions are long and important. I must ask hon. Members to await the completion of the Government's study of the Opinion.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the South African Government that Her Majesty's Government consider that South Africa's writ does not now run in South-West Africa? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate some idea of the line he intends to take when the whole Opinion is discussed in the United Nations?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. As I said, this is a long judgment—it runs to 400 pages—and there are dissenting judgments. I must ask for time to consider it before answering a question on it.

Mr. Judd: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this Advisory Opinion is of great significance not only for itself but for the process of building up the whole tradition of international law? Will he undertake to come to the House as soon as possible and make the fullest possible statement on the Government's position? If by any chance the Government decide that they will not accept this Advisory Opinion, will he make a full statement to the House on precisely how they can justify that attitude?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will certainly take the opportunity to clarify this matter to the House as soon as the Government are ready to do so.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As the matter is now being discussed in the United Nations and it may be that the question will arise for decision at a fairly early stage, will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the Government will not apply the veto, as they did on an earlier occasion in relation to Southern Africa, and that, before a decision is announced, or perhaps when the decision has been announced but at an early stage thereafter, there will be a debate about the whole problem of Namibia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We shall have to see what happens in the United Nations. The United Nations has been known to discuss things without adequate knowledge.

Hong Kong (Generalised Preference Scheme)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the negotiations with Japan for acceptance by Japan of Hong Kong as a beneficiary country within the Generalised Preference Scheme.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Discussions with Japan on the question of Hong Kong's inclusion as a beneficiary in the Japanese Generalised Preference Scheme have taken place over a period of many months. The question was also discussed by my right hon. Friend with Mr. Aichi, the then Japanese Foreign Minister, during his visit to London last month. As stated in the communiqué after these talks, Mr. Aichi declared that it was the intention of the Japanese Government to include Hong Kong in their scheme, subject to certain restrictions and some delay in application.

Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware how welcome it is that the Government have been able to secure the inclusion by Japan of Hong Kong as a beneficiary under the scheme? Will he tell us how long the delay, to which he has referred, is expected to be?

Mr. Royle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points which he has made. Hong Kong and other dependent territories will not be included at the start of

the Japanese Generalised Preference Scheme on 1st August this year. The most probable date for their subsequent inclusion is 1st April, 1972. The final shape of the Japanese offer to Hong Kong has not yet been decided.

East Pakistan and India (Refugees)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has received from the British High Commissions in Pakistan and in India of the number of deaths among residents in, and refugees from, East Pakistan, and as to how such deaths were caused.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest diplomatic initiatives undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the situation in Pakistan.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will grant further humanitarian aid for Pakistan.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It has not been possible for our Missions in Pakistan and India to make estimates of the number of deaths caused. We are making a contribution of £1 million in cash or kind to U Thant's appeal for relief in East Pakistan. This is over and above anything given up till now.

Mr. Janner: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation has reached the stage of a major catastrophe, not only for the refugees but also for the Government and people of India? Would he not agree that there is a real threat to international peace? Will he reconsider raising the matter at the United Nations or at the Security Council?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that there are two issues here. The first is how to help ameliorate the terrible conditions. The second is how to reverse the flow of refugees. Many Governments are giving active consideration to the issue. No positive proposals have come forward as yet, although I am considering one put forward by the High Commissioner for Refugees.

Mr. Allaun: Approximately how much economic aid is being, or is to be


supplied to West Pakistan? Should it not be ended entirely until the West Pakistan Army is withdrawn from East Pakistan, and the aid supplied to India instead?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My right hon. Friend is shortly to answer a Question about that. The greater part of the new aid which we hope to be able to supply is in East Pakistan, particularly in relation to power and water, and it is very important that this should happen if it is at all possible. As regards West Pakistan, I think that my right hon. Friend will answer a Question about that.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much his statement is welcomed and how responsible throughout these tragic times the Government's attitude has been? In particular, I welcome the £1 million extra for humanitarian relief in East Pakistan because it is true, is it not, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has emphasised the necessity for the long-term rehabilitation of the economy in the eastern wing of Pakistan?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the extra £1 million will help particularly the distress in the cyclone areas, where communications have been badly hit.

Mr. Shore: In view of the behaviour of the West Pakistan Army in East Bengal, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has used his influence with the American Government, with whom he has discussed these matters, to see that our decision not to supply arms to West Pakistan is shared by the American Administration?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Communications between ourselves and the American Government must be confidential. I am responsible for the United Kingdom Government's decision.

Mr. Jessel: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of the West Pakistan Army goes far beyond what is needed to restore law and order in East Pakistan, and that the Army's conduct is the main cause of the enormous flood of refugees into India? Will

he bring all possible pressure to bear to cause some change in what is happening?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must say, as I have said before, that the flight of the refugees is largely due to fear. I think that it would not help if I were to say any more than that now. Again, I think that it is more helpful that our communications with the Pakistan Government should be private.

Albania

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for renewing diplomatic relations with Albania.

Mr. Kershaw: None, Sir.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my hon. Friend see whether it is possible to help this country maintain and develop the independence that we did so much to re establish?

Mr. Kershaw: We are always ready to listen to any initiative from Albania, but we have not heard anything from her in this matter. In the meantime, I do not think that our tourist and trading relations are harmed by our not having diplomatic relations with her.

India (Aid)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's future aid programme to India.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I cannot add at present to the reply I gave on 21st June to a Question from the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart).—[Vol. 819, c. 986–87.]

Mr. Judd: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that aid is of little use without greater opportunities for trade? If he agrees on that, would he not also agree that there is room for grave concern at the latest developments in economic relationships between India and Britain and the possible implications for the Indian economy of our entry into the E.E.C.? Would he assure us that there is no question of our being asked to vote


on entry before we have the firmest possible assurances about how Indian economic interests are to be assured?

Mr. Wood: I cannot give that assurance, because my responsibilities are for aid to India and other countries. The responsibility for trade matters rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Questions about the trade agreements, tariffs, and quotas for textiles should be directed to my right hon. Friend.

Pakistan (Aid)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding new economic assistance for Pakistan from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wood: I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made on 23rd June.—[Vol. 819, c. 1436–37.]

Mr. Barnes: In view of the report of the World Bank on Pakistan, which shows an astonishing amount of ignorance on the part of the Government of Pakistan about the true situation in East Pakistan, can the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm that there will be no new economic assistance to Pakistan, as distinct from any relief operation in which Britain might engage in East Pakistan, until there is a political settlement acceptable to the people of East Pakistan?

Mr. Wood: What I am prepared to confirm are the actual words of the statement which my right hon. Friend made at the end of last month, in which he said that there was no question of new British aid—that is what the hon. Gentleman asked about—until we have firm evidence that real progress is made towards a political solution. That is what my right hon. Friend said, and that remains the position.

Sierra Leone

Mr. Soref: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will stop aid to Sierra Leone owing to its occupation by Guienean armed forces.

Mr. Wood: No, Sir.

Mr. Soref: In the circumstances, that country is in a unique position, in that there is an alien, aggressive, Communist invading force there. In those circumstances, can we justify to the British taxpayer the spending of British money to support that country?

Mr. Wood: The factor about that country which is not unique is that it has a lawful Government. The lawful Government requested these troops, and there is no reason at all why I should suspend aid for that reason.

Mr. James Johnson: May I ask the Minister to pay no attention to this Fascist piffle? Is it not a fact that Siaka Stevens, the Prime Minister, asked Her Majesty's Government to give him help under these conditions but that we did not send any forces? This is a fellow Commonwealth State, and I object to this kind of attack on it.

Mr. Wood: I cannot accept that description of my hon. Friend's remarks. He has a point of view and he is perfectly at liberty to express it.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was in Sierra Leone recently and that I warmly support his answers today? Would he take this opportunity of agreeing with the view of the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, that the primary aim of British aid is to assist long-term economic development, that this is in British interests and that it should not be turned off and on like a tap for short-term political reasons?

Mr. Wood: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. It is a point that I took the opportunity of emphasising in the debate last month.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will invite the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone to pay an official visit to London.

Mr. Kershaw: The Prime Minister of Sierra Leone was invited to pay an official visit to the United Kingdom in May. This invitation is still open.

Mr. Whitehead: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and associate myself with his right hon. Friend's rebuff to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref). Nevertheless, could he convey


to the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone the very real regret felt in this country at the recent executions there—while of course acknowledging that we have neither the right nor the need to interfere in their internal affairs?

Mr. Kershaw: As the hon. Gentleman says, we have no formal locus standi to interfere in these matters, but I am sure that the reactions of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) when he went there recently will have shown that there is a great deal of good will for this country in Sierra Leone, which we heartily reciprocate.

Development Divisions

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he hopes to set up additional development divisions.

Mr. Oram: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affair if he proposes to establish further development divisions similar to those in Barbados and Beirut.

Mr. Wood: When I replied to the recommendations of the Select Committee, I said that I could not yet say what would be the outcome of the study now being made of this matter. This is still the position.

Sir G. Sinclair: But in view of our development aid programmes in Malawi, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, and in view of the importance of showing con-cen for African advance in that region, will the Minister not now set up a development division to help co-ordinate our assistance and to make high-level professional advice available on the spot?

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. I cannot do it now, because I am still waiting for the study which is being made of the general principle affecting the development divisions. As my hon. Friend knows, I am generally sympathetic to this. I believe that the two which exist are very helpful. The area which he mentioned is one area that I have in mind for a possible future division if such were recommended.

Mr. Oram: Have not the two existing divisions conclusively proved themselves in terms of value for money, and are they not fully accepted as useful instruments by the countries whose territories they

serve? Why, then, is it necessary to go into a long investigation of the principle of the matter? Is that not already agreed and can we not look forward to fairly ready action in the matter?

Mr. Wood: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the two existing divisions. I have already tried to make that point, but the principle is important, because the principle is obviously different in the Middle East or the Caribbean from that in other parts of the world. That is why it is important that we should look at it.

Mrs. Hart: What has been the cause of the year's delay in taking further consideration of a development division for Southern Africa? It was already at a planning stage over a year ago. What has happened since then?

Mr. Wood: It is still at a planning stage and I hope that before long I shall be able to relieve the right hon. Lady's anxiety. I know she is keenly interested in this matter.

Overseas Pensions

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to assume responsibility for the payment of overseas pensions directly to individual pensioners.

Mr. Wood: I cannot yet give a date, but it will be as soon as possible after we have the necessary legislative authority and the agreement of the various overseas governments concerned.

Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome that statement, but would my right hon. Friend hasten the end of this process, both in the political interests of the countries concerned and to remove from pensioners themselves further worry about dislocation of payments?

Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir. I see the urgency of this, but legislation requires time, and time is required for other legislation.

Jewish Citizens (U.S.S.R.)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest representations to the Soviet authorities, following the recent. Court decisions in the


Soviet Union affecting Jewish citizens who wish to emigrate to Israel.

Mr. Kershaw: During his recent visit to Moscow the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed a senior Soviet official of the concern felt in Britain at reports about trials of Soviet Jews, from which Western journalists have been excluded.

Mr. Dykes: Without any disrespect to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, would my hon. Friend see to it that this is done again at a higher level, so that there may be made quite clear to the Soviet Union, which does not appear to be as insensitive to public opinion abroad as perhaps some may imagine, the total abhorrence felt in this country at what his happening to Jews?

Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done this a number of times in this country, and our representative at the United Nations has also made himself absolutely clear about it.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SHOOTING INCIDENTS)

Miss Devlin: Miss Devlin (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will set up an independent public inquiry into the shooting of Seamus Cusack and George Beatty in Derry on 8th July and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): On the first part of the question, No, Sir. In accordance with the standard practice, the Army has carried out its own investigation into the shooting incidents on 8th July and is satisfied that on both occasions when soldiers opened fire and civilians were hit the civilian concerned was carrying a weapon and there was good reason to suppose that he was about to use it offensively. This investigation does not supersede any proceedings that may be appropriate under the civil law, at which the Army will co-operate in making evidence available.

Miss Devlin: The Minister is doubtless aware that the statement issued by the Army that civilians who were shot, as he has said again this afternoon, were at

that time armed has been disputed by those people who are prepared to come forward to give evidence and their facts. The existing facts appear to be contrary. On the one hand, the Army says that the people who were shot were threatening the soldiers with firearms at that time, but Mr. John Hume in Derry, the Member of Parliament for that area, says that he has evidence which he is prepared to bring forward to an inquiry to say that that is not true. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the Army will not face a public inquiry and will not face the facts. Therefore, the Minister of Defence stands in this House today as the official liar for the G.O.C. Northern Ireland and about the murder of people in the city of Derry. I hope that a public inquiry will be set up. I hope that the Army will come forward and give evidence and state their facts. If they saw people with guns, what kind of guns did they see? If they saw people threatening with bombs, will they produce facts and stand by them? Or will they accept that the Minister is lying?

Lord Balniel: In view of the hon. Lady's remarks, I think the House will be interested to know the facts. During the night of 7th–8th July a detachment of soldiers were deployed following the ambushing of a military Landrover. One of the soldiers saw a civilian carrying a rifle at the ready. He shouted a warning to the man to stand fast. This was ignored. The man then aimed at the troops. The soldier fired one aimed shot and the man fell. On the afternoon of 8th July a patrol in a Landrover was moving towards a crowd of stone throwers on the edge of Bogside. A stolen lorry was driven into the Landrover and nail bombs and stones were thrown at troops dismounting. Two soldiers each fired one shot and killed a man who was throwing a nail bomb at them. I am satisfied from inquiries I have made that there was no misconduct on the part of the troops.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is it not about time that it was made absolutely clear that those who use nail bombs and carry arms in situations like these are running the risk of being shot? Is my hon. Friend aware that on Friday I received messages all day paying tributes to the courage, the restraint and humanity of the troops involved? From what I can hear, I endorse them too. Why should anyone


pay very much attention to the strictures on the British Army of someone who in 1969 openly boasted she had spent part of her time trying to encourage them to desert from the British Army?

Lord Balniel: I take note of the last point made by my hon. Friend. On the first point, he is absolutely correct that people who take part in riots and carry rifle and nail bombs and petrol bombs are simply asking for trouble. It is only because of the immense care which is taken by the troops to avoid hurting innocent bystanders that more people are not killed in these disgraceful riots.

Mr. George Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nobody in the House will wish to say anything today of all days which might heighten tension in Northern Ireland? Is he aware, since anger has been expressed by my hon. Friend behind me, that anyone who saw the scenes on television yesterday was bound to feel that the reaction of ordinary British people will be one of intense anger that our soldiers, who are trying to save Northern Ireland from a blood bath, should face the kind of provocative actions which they do face? Is he further aware that it is very necessary in these difficult circumstances that not only should the soldiers use minimum force but that it should be absolutely clear that they have used minimum force? While not wishing to dissent from what was said about the demand for an inquiry, it would be important, in order to give the clearest possible evidence of what has happened and to get that across, that such an inquiry should be a civil inquiry in which one would have the civil authority in Northern Ireland investigating the actions of the British Army. The sort of inquiry suggested by my hon. Friend might cause more complications than help.

Lord Balniel: I think the right hon. Gentleman has spoken for the broad mass of opinion in this country. I would certainly like to echo the point which he makes. It is the responsibility of the troops who have prevented a slide into further disaster to use minimum force. As I have said, I am satisfied that this was done on this occasion, but it is open to the civil authorities to make their inquiries in preparation for the coroner's inquiry, and the Army authorities will certainly co-operate in that respect.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that in view of what the Minister has said we should proceed with other business.

Later—

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not be aware of the fact that there is considerable feeling amongst hon. Members on my side of the Chamber that on the issue of Northern Ireland, which we would all, irrespective of one's views, regard as a matter of the gravest importance, not one back bencher was called from among my hon. Friends. I would put it to you that on issues of this kind, which are, as I say, matters of the utmost and gravest importance, there should be a wider selection of hon. Members to ask questions.

Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make the point that, apart from the point of view of the hon. Member for mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and apart from the points of view from the Front Benches, no other valid points of view were expressed in the House? I have a feeling that some of my hon. Friends were prevented from putting their points of view. Naturally we are extremely distressed about it.

Mr. Speaker: All I can say is that I am sorry that the hon. Member should say that. The Chair is always in a great difficulty in making the decision whether to allow a Private Notice Question or not, and this is particularly so with regard to the events in Northern Ireland. It is a matter which gives me great concern every time there is a fatality in Northern Ireland, whether a Private Notice Question should be allowed, because I am not certain that it is always in the public interest. I also have to decide how many supplementary questions there should be. There were about a dozen Members who rose on the Government side, and originally only one on the Opposition side. The Minister indicated, as I thought, that there would be a further inquiry and investigation into the matter, and I thought that in those circumstances the quicker we moved on to the next business the better. The Chair may easily make a mistake. I do the best I can. If hon. Members are not satisfied they have a remedy open to them. I am very sorry. I did the best I could.

MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the recent White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, with the renewed emphasis on community care, the policy of providing community instead of hospital care for the mentally handicapped who do not need hospital treatment, and the additional £40 million made available by the present Government for accelerating over the next four years the increase and improvement of community services for the mentally handicapped and the improvement of conditions in the hospitals for the mentally handicapped.
When it was my good fortune to have won a place in the Ballot, I was faced with something of that choice which is extended to the winner of other lotteries, namely, whether to expend this good fortune on a few exhilirating hours of party politics, attacking the follies of the former Labour Government and perhaps lacing it with the a few criticisms of the present Administration, or using the time constructively. I decided on the latter course.
My choice of subject was influenced by many factors. In the first place, like many hon. Members, I have come across a great number of matters in my constituency which flow directly or indirectly from the problems of the mentally handicapped. That must be the common experience of us all. Secondly, my visits to hospitals for the mentally handicapped have shown that some have a standard which is quite intolerable in the year 1971.
Thirdly, a great deal of time of this House and a great deal of publicity outside it has been devoted in recent months to what might be called by hon. Members opposite the harsher aspects of Government and I believe that it is time that the other aspects of Government which is equally powerful—the compassionate side of this Government—should have rather more time devoted to it. That can be illustrated by pointing to the amount of time that has been spent in debate, much of it at the request of the Opposition, on issues such as steel, while as far as I am aware the only reference made in the House to this very important White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped" was contained in a Written Answer by my right hon. Friend.
My final reason for choosing this subject was that if the White Paper is to achieve the object and aims set out in it, it is essential that there should be a better understanding on the part of the public and a wider audience than that consisting of those who read only parliamentary papers, because to achieve the objective the public must both know and care.
I do not suggest for a moment that there is any greater compassion claimed by hon. Members on this side than on that : to do so would be quite wrong. On the other hand, I believe that hon. Members will concede that there is no less compassion on this side than on that. All parties recognise and sympathise with the problems. The White Paper, which is referred to in my Motion, acknowledges very freely and fairly that a great deal of its ground work that was done by the previous Government. It is right to say that both parties will the same end, but my right hon. Friend is entitled to claim the added virtue of providing the means to achieve that end.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), when Secretary of State, recognised the need, which became very apparent in 1969. The House will recall that he then introduced what was known as the "interim" Measure in order to do something about the appalling conditions that had been starkly revealed in a number of cases. But a large part of the resources that were needed to fulfil the tasks set out in that interim Measure were dependent on the right hon. Gentleman's exhortations to hospital boards to reallocate money in 1970–71 which had already been allocated and no doubt used or planned to be used by those hospital boards for other essential hospital projects. He faced those boards with difficult problems of priorities, of robbing Peter to pay Paul. In 1971–72, which was as far ahead as he looked, I will not develop the reasons for this, the allocation of specific revenue expenditure under this head amounted to only £1½ million. My right hon. Friend increased the allocation of specific revenue to £3½ million, and also allotted further funds, so that the total sum available for hospital and local authority services for the mentally handicapped for the period


1974–75 will be increased by £40 million to £100 million in all.
I obviously must doubt whether that amount is enough. Many hon. Members, seeing the size of the problem, will feel that that is a very good start but that a great deal more is needed, and the White Paper recognises that it is only Stage I. But I must make some contrast between the policies of the parties on the financial aspects. I do not do so in order to provoke party controversy, because on this subject we can find a great deal of common ground, but the financial aspects illustrate the different approach and policies of this party and that.
There can be no disagreement that a great deal more money is needed; that a great deal more of the national resources must be put into both the hospital and the local authority services for the mentally handicapped. The former Administration, recognising that need, met it, or tried to meet it, in large measure by cutting back on the general hospital services and by transfer and reallocation. My right hon. Friend has approached the problem by giving very substantially more to the hospital services and the local authority services for the mentally handicapped, at the same time giving very substantially more to the other hospital services.
On the other hand—and this is, perhaps, an issue of party politics that I cannot avoid when talking about this aspect—the Government overall have financed a measure of these extra resources by requiring those who can afford to pay for certain services, whether they be prescription charges or school meals, to pay more than they did previously. This is the fundamentally different approach of the two parties, but it is a good illustration of how, when more money must be found, the present Government approach the matter. It is an approach which I believe has been supported by the public, and certainly by those who have seen the hospital conditions provided for many of these people.
I turn now to the needs, because it is needs to which my Motion primarily refers. The White Paper estimates that there are some 120,000 people mentally handicapped within the definition of the White Paper, of whom about half are children. A number of authoritative

sources believe that figure to be a substantial underestimate. There have been two censuses, the results of which are now being analysed. It will be interesting to see their outcome, but from the evidence of the large waiting lists for hospitals and certainly for homes for mentally handicapped, and of the number of mild mentally handicapped who may not have got on to any register, it seems that the White Paper, if it is out in its estimate of numbers, is out by being an underestimate.
I turn now to the question of the hospitals and the needs there. No doubt there are some very good hospitals, but a very large number—I fear they are the vast majority—are old and vastly overcrowded, and these conditions are intolerable, as I have said.
In the hospital group that serves my constituency in Leicester, there is an overcrowding to the extent of 46 per cent. I understand that this will be reduced to 15 per cent. in September. In paragraph 99, the White Paper acknowledges that, on the latest statistical evidence available, in 1969 60 per cent. of the hospitals had sleeping space of under 50 square feet per patient against a target of 70 square feet. I ask hon. Members to visualise what that means. I am sure that many will have seen those conditions. There are beds, side by side, with no room for such things as lockers, and very often no room for patients to pass between the beds, so that to get into bed they have to climb over the tailboard. Many of these patients are severely incontinent, and these are conditions which have become intolerable.
I welcome the White Paper's declaration of what is being done because, with the vast overcrowding, with incontinence, with lavatories very often well away from or inconvenient to the sleeping accommodation, and with limited recreational facilities, conditions for the staff are extremely hard. Morale must suffer and recruiting must be badly affected by that. I am sure that all hon. Members who have seen these sort of conditions, have the highest praise for the staff who do such tremendous work in these hospitals. But that is not enough. We must have conditions which allow us to obtain proper staff working under proper conditions, and not staff who can do no more


than look after the patients' basic physical needs.
I have some criticisms of the White Paper. It could have been rather more sharply drafted. I should like to have seen a clearer distinction made between the rôles of hospitals and residential homes. The dividing line between what will be in the hospital service and what will be in the local authority homes is not entirely clear. In a paper from the Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped, I have just seen that they have also made criticisms about that distinction.
In its intention and its clear message about laying the emphasis on domiciliary and community care, the White Paper is absolutely right. But the dividing line as to how that is to operate in practice sometimes gets a little blurred. It is essential that the strain on the hospitals be relieved so that they can achieve their proper rôle. There is a rôle for the hospitals, which is well set out in paragraph 181 of the White Paper, which talks about in-patient treatment and says :
The aim is to help all patients, including the most severely handicapped, to develop to their full potential and to achieve as positive and independent a life as their handicaps allow.
That must be right, but it can be put into practice only if the strains on the hospitals and the overcrowding are removed.
The provision of residential homes is critical, both in relieving strains on hospitals and, what is far more important, in providing the right community care for patients. In all too many areas there is no halfway house between the family home and the overcrowded hospitals. For the mentally handicapped person whose condition has deteriorated or whose family conditions no longer enable him to remain at his home, the only course is for him to go into one of these overcrowded hospitals. That applies in too many parts of the country. The White Paper rightly sets out the conditions for which we must aim in these homes. They must be homes in which people can live within the community, as far as possible, and not be segregated from it, and in which they can attend a special school or training centre and live as normal a life as possible.
I welcome particularly the requirement that they should provide for weekly boarders. Many mentally handicapped persons can be looked after in their homes at weekends, and many families want them back in their homes but find it almost impossible to look after them throughout the week as well. It may be that the only person capable of properly looking after the mentally handicapped person is himself having to go out to work. If it is possible for the mentally handicapped to go as weekly boarders during the week and to return home at weekends, there are great advantages to both sides, to the family and to the handicapped person. In many cases it will be essential that this be provided for if advantage is to be taken of the special schools and training centres, and the jobs which we hope can be made available close to these residential homes.
I welcome, too, the short stay boarders requirement, because the strain upon families is intolerable if it is for 365 days a year. Some mentally handicapped persons need a considerable amount of care. If it is possible to lift that strain and enable the family to have a holiday or a break, the strain is tremendously reduced. I regret that although the City of Leicester, in which my constituency lies, has made more progress than most in the way of training centres and the provision of residential homes for adults—though not nearly enough yet—it has no provision for residential care of children.
The load and the strain upon the family, which is so well put in the White Paper, is not recognised enough by the community as a whole. The constant attendance which is so often needed, the effects on other children in the family who have a mentally handicapped brother or sister, and the sense of shame which so many of them wrongly suffer from—which is unfortunate in this day and age, but I am glad that attitudes are changing—very often makes them conceal or try not to acknowledge the existence of the mentally handicapped or find the right treatment or cure for them.
The White Paper recognises the family problem and proposes positive action. It recognises the financial burden, which can be severe for a family who have to travel some distance to see a handicapped person. The daily attendance allowance will probably relieve the strain on many


of these families when it begins to operate in December. But the problems are more than that. There is a need for advice and practical help. The emphasis that the White Paper puts on the importance of the family and what is being done about it is very welcome.
On the question of research into prevention and cure, important as that is, J should be glad if my right hon. Friend would say what progress is being made into the problems of autistic children. There seems some conflict of views about their treatment. If my right hon. Friend has anything which he can add, I should very much welcome it.
The final category, if I may call it such, within the White Paper is the voluntary service element. First, I praise the organisations which are and have been doing so much, especially in recent years, both in education and the changing of people's attitudes and for the practical help which they have been giving. I welcome the encouragement the White Paper gives to this and particularly the emphasis it lays on the help that can be given to families.
I will quote two examples, one where help would be very welcome and one where a great deal is being done. The first example which I quote to illustrate the point which I hope I have made is a case in my constituency of a severely autistic boy living with his mother and three sisters in a small council house. The three sisters had considerable academic ability. They were taking various examinations at an exceptionally high level—and the greatest credit to them—but in conditions which were impossisble. The severely autistic son was disrupting the whole system in the household and destroying any books that they left around. If a neighbour had allowed the three girls to use her front room in the evenings to do their homework and perhaps watch television in her house, because they could not have a television set in their own house, it would have been a tremendous help to that family. I suppose people were inclined to think that the help that was required was help with looking after the mentally handicapped son, but that was only part of the answer.
The other case refers to a unique group called Menphys which has been formed in my constituency to provide recreation for mentally and physically handicapped

children. The group meets every Saturday, collects mentally and physically handicapped children together, and takes them out. The group sometimes organises outings during the week, but outings on Saturday mornings are a regular occurrence.
This achieves two purposes. It takes the strain off the mothers and the households on Saturday morning. The mother can go and do her shopping, get her hair done or just put her feet up. It provides the one certain break the mother can have during the week. It also stimulates an interest amongst the children. It has been said by many with considerable experience that the mixing of physically handicapped and mentally handicapped would not help. In this group, which has been running for only a year, it has been a great success. A bond of understanding has been created between the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped which I am told is remarkable. The mentally handicapped helps the physically handicapped, and vice versa.
I ask my right hon. Friend to study this experiment. There may be other such experiments of which I am unaware, but I believe that this one is novel. It is not without interest that some of the young people who have helped the group are seriously considering taking up work with children as a career. They have seen the rewarding impact of their work.
I will not attempt to elaborate on the White Paper. Many hon. Members have great knowledge of the problems and the facilities which are available and what should be done. They can amplify on these aspects far better than I can.
If the debate does nothing else than encourage a growth of understanding on the part of the public and brings to their notice the rôle that they can play in helping to cope with the problems of the mentally handicapped and their families—I stress "and their families"—I hope that hon. Members will not consider that this use of private Members' time has been wasted.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I welcome the opportunity of speaking in this debate and I offer my warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), not only on choosing the


subject, which is highly commendable, but on his contribution to the debate.
Apart from the outburst of indignation one hears after occurrences such as Ely and Farleigh, the problems of the mentally handicapped tend to drift unheralded and unseen in the backwaters of public indifference and neglect. This is why I am appreciative of the choice of subject by the hon. Gentleman.
Although I give the Government's White Paper a qualified welcome, I am bound to say that no Government have a proud record in the face of the continuing scandal of the imprisonment of thousands of mentally handicapped people in our asylums in conditions which would make any respectable prison reformer hysterical. I use the word "asylums" because I believe that the change to the term "mental hospitals" has begun to mislead the public about what these fortresses are. They are asylums which imprison mentally handicapped people.
I know that the Government do not like them and the Opposition do not like them and I think that the public are being misled into believing that, because they are called "mental hospitals", people within them are receiving medical treatment which will help. I believe that this euphemism should be dropped, even though I am still as anxious as anyone to ensure that the mentally handicapped should not be regarded by the public in the same way as they were in the past.
It is not only the Government who have no proud record about the mentally handicapped. It is also the medical profession, because neither royal colleges nor royal societies of medicine have done a great deal for the mentally handicapped. They are notably backward in helping backward children and backward adults. I believe that their silence in th face of the great scandals of the asylums has displayed either an incredible ignorance or an unforgivable neglect.
If mentally handicapped people were looking to the medical profession to expose these scandals, they have looked in vain, because they have been exposed by Members of the House, by members of the Government, or by forward-looking journalists. They have not been exposed by the medical profession.
It is beyond my comprehension how the medical profession can apparently condone a situation in a London hospital in which five senior consultants are attending in a hospital with 1,471 beds while at the same time in a general hospital with 1,471 beds there are 120 senior specialists. I know that mentally handicapped people do not all require medical specialists, but I refuse to believe that all the people in the mentally handicapped hospital need so little medical attention as can be given by only five specialists.
Although public opinion is changing, the public, too, like Governments and the medical profession, have no proud record when it comes to dealing with mentally handicapped people, because with up to 2,000 people in asylums, herded into domitories, deprived of clothes, possessions and self-respect, we should hear an outraged roar of public objection. But we do not. The public have been relatively quiet about scandals which have been exposed in the House, in the Press and on television. Although the Government and the Opposition are doing what they can about the problem—and I am critical of the Government, as I shall explain—only when the public are awakened will this problem be resolved. I hope that the Government will make a great effort to try to awaken public opinion. This is a chicken-and-egg situation. The stronger the public feels about this matter, the easier it is for the Government to take action. But until members of the public awaken to the problem, very little can be done by the Government.
It is a tiny minority of the medical profession who deserve our plaudits—those people who are dedicating themselves to helping the mentally handicapped. It is a small number of sociologists—people like Professor Peter Townsend and journalists like Ann Shearer and Sandra Franklin, the architect—who are campaigning in a greatly encouraging and highly stimulating way. They are in the vanguard with new thinking and new ideas. Although the Secretary of State will not accept all their ideas—I do not think that he can possibly do so with the limited financial resources at his disposal—these are the people who are becoming the new leaders of public opinion.
Some advances have been made, however, and the Government deserve credit for them, as do their predecessors. But, judged by the basic criterion—which is that the aim of any service for the mentally handicapped is to enable them to live as normal a life as possible—we still have a long way to go. That aim can be stated more clearly, perhaps with brutal clarity, by demanding that we should empty the asylums. We cannot do that overnight. I accept that it will take 15 years to do it. But if we set a deadline of 1985 to empty the asylums, this would be a noble goal at which to aim, because it has been estimated that if every population over 100,000 undertook to provide a living unit for eight people per year then the problem of our large mental hospitals could be solved. So the asylums could be emptied in this period and there can be no better aim for the Government or for the Opposition.
Although the Secretary of State is commendably committed in the White Paper to a significant reduction in the number of people in our mental hospitals, he says that he fears that it would be premature to try to empty the asylums. I can understand his difficulties and I recognise the practical problems of this objective. But I do not think it is seriously disputed that the great majority of the people in asylums are not in need of continuous medical care. They do not need
assistance to feed, wash or dress
and they even have
no physical handicap or severe behavioural difficulties".
This is the picture which the House and the public must recognise.
We shall not have crazy madmen walking the streets if these people are released. They have a mental disability which does not need medical attention. Many of them are pleasant people who can live in an outside community without a great deal of difficulty. There might be some difficulty, but that could be provided for by extending community care, and the medical treatment which the minority of them require can be afforded in the ordinary general hospitals. The Government should commit themselves much more firmly to the priority of improving community care and community facilities.
I do not suggest that no improvements should be made to the hospitals. That is a necessary, temporary step. But I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that any improvements made to the mental hospitals do not lead to them becoming permanent institutions. The House will remember what happened with the old prefabricated houses. They were supposed to be temporary residences, and I now see "prefabs" from the First World War occasionally being renovated by well-intentioned councils and the renovation is used as an excuse for permanence. I hope that the Secretary of State will watch this situation very carefully.
One of the sections in the White Paper which really disturbs me is that in which the Secretary of State says that the Government will play their part but that the main responsibility lies with the local authorities. We all know the almost limitless range of competence and good will among the local authorities; and in the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which deals with mentally handicapped people, we have seen how a vast range of provision can be made. Some of them are doing a magnificent job. But some are greedy, lazy, selfish, arrogant, nasty and indifferent to the plight of the disabled, and the House might as well recognise that. Local authorities which ignore the mentally handicapped will have to be cajoled and bullied by the Secretary of State. While I commend those local authorities which are doing an admirable job for the mentally handicapped. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman should put great pressure on the bad local authorities.
I hope that what the local authorities will get from the Secretary of State is a kick in the two places where it hurts most : first, in the backside and, secondly, in their pockets. This is the only way in which he can ensure that positive action will be taken on behalf of mentally handicapped people by local authorities which are indifferent to their plight. If these local authorities want to dig in their heels, I am sure that the House will be prepared to fight. But I hope that they will co-operate with the Government and with the House in attempting to achieve the noble aim of enabling all mentally handicapped people to live their lives in as normal a way as possible.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I shall not take up in detail the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I thought that he made some very fair points, though he was, for my taste, a little harsh on the medical profession as a whole, since I believe that we should not blame doctors quite so heavily for some of the things that have happened in this field over the years.
Broadly, I welcome the evidence of the Secretary of State's concern in this subject. So far as I can judge, the White Paper which we are discussing is a sensible document. It seems to me to take further the very well worth while developments which have come about in our approach to the training and education of mentally handicapped people in recent years, and it offers the prospect of a considerable better situation in the future.
I consider that the White Paper is right to lay the emphasis which it does on community care, and I do not think that anyone will be likely to dispute that this is the direction in which we should now be going. On the other hand, I think it right to reject the notion, even in principle at this stage, of the wholesale abolition of hospitals for the mentally handicapped. I recently visited one such hospital, as I shall explain in a moment, and the doctor in charge there pointed out to me one or two of the problems which would arise if we did adopt the notion that everything could be done in the community.
The first point to be brought out is simple. There are those, as this doctor told me, at his hospital "who have been with us for 20 or 30 years, who rightly regard the hospital as their home and the staff as parent surrogates". In other words, to have abolition and immediate dispersal of the patients at these hospitals could cause a great deal of unhappiness.
Second, and more important, the notion that there should be general dispersal rests so far, I believe, on a fairly limited research basis. The research of Dr. Kushlick is now rightly becoming well known, and anyone who has heard him speak or read about his work will acknowledge that it is in its way extremely impressive. But the fact

remains that we have not yet a substantial body of research. The experiments have been going on for only a year or two, and it would be a mistake, I believe, to rush into a policy which said that hospitals were necessarily wrong or hostels or family care necessarily right.
Community care and family care represent an ideal, but we must be sure of what we are doing before we have a headlong change in policy. In particular, we must be sure that, if people are transferred to the community, it will be possible effectively to provide the services which they so clearly need, and it must be seen that these services can be provided at least as effectively as they can in the best sort of hospital organisation.
We know that there are many facilities of which the mentally handicapped can make full use. They need, for example, physiotherapy units, they can use heated swimming pools to good effect, and they have need for such facilities as "rumpus rooms" and the like which are now being talked about. Perhaps the latter could be provided in a hostel or even in the ordinary home, but some of the other facilities will not be easily available if we have a sudden flowering of small hostels throughout the country. If we move towards hostels, we must be sure that the facilities are to hand.
We have heard—it is well known now—that this is an area of care presenting enormous problems. No one today can doubt the magnitude of what has to be done, and I shall not labour that. On the other hand, it is worth making the point that this is now an area of considerable hope, too.
In the first place, in the political world, Government and Opposition parties and public opinion generally have come to see that the mentally handicapped are people to whom we must now give far higher priority than we have ever given in the past. The battle is not won, but there has been an enormous advance in this respect. Also—this is of equal, or, possibly, even greater importance—we are beginning to absorb the lesson of just how much potential can be realised among mentally handicapped people. Over the last few years, people like Professor Tizard have shown that patients who, in the past, were regarded as totally ineducable are, in fact, capable of being educated, and as a result improved


facilities for training and education are coming into being. This is of great importance, and, again, it is very much part of the notion that, if we do disperse the mentally handicapped, we must not lose sight of them.
Third, and most important, there is greater public awareness, greater public sympathy and a greater understanding that the mentally handicapped should not be regarded as outcasts to be locked away.
I wish to tell the House now of my visit last Saturday to a fete held at the Manor House Hospital in Aylesbury. The first time I visited this hospital was some weeks ago, and I admit frankly that I went there with a considerable feeling of unease and some uncertainty about how I should react to what I might find there, for it is a hospital housing severely handicapped people. I broke the barrier, as it were, on that visit. After my visit there on Saturday, with my wife and two children, to open the fete, I came away with a feeling almost of exhilaration. This was due not to the fact that it is a highly advanced unit in terms of its facilities but to the real sense of revival which one feels there, a real sense that things are beginning to move.
The fete was given by the newly established League of Friends. I say "newly established" but I should say "revived", because it had been in existence some years ago but had fallen into abeyance. This fete marked the League's return to activity, and the Friends had put an enormous amount of work into it.
The environment and spirit of the hospital is affected also by the fact that, at long last, it is to have new buildings. For several years now, there have been plans on the drawing board for a new hospital, and last October these were given the go-ahead. I do not believe that the plans are perfect, partly because an essential feature of the new hospital is that it is to be built primarily as one big unit, and most of us know—certainly the staff know—that it would have been better to have it built as a series of smaller sections which might more easily be used to establish a family atmosphere. So the plans are not perfect, and the villain of the piece, as always, is cost. Nevertheless, there is a real feeling in the hospital now that it is moving forward to something very much better than people have had

in the past, and I believe that within the large new framework it will be possible, by careful organisation, to have quite a degree of family feeling and a breaking down into smaller units while at the same time providing the facilities which are of such importance. That is the second encouraging feature.
The third encouraging feature to me on my visit to the fete—I suspect that this is felt by most people who go to a function of this kind or who visit such places—is the unexpected degree of happiness which one can find in that sort of atmosphere. This is partly the result of the opening-up process which is taking place. Admittedly, it was, so to speak, a gala occasion on Saturday, with the feeling that everyone's parents and families were coming along, and a general atmosphere of cheerfulness which cannot but help to lift one's spirits. But it is most important and encouraging that one does find on visits to places of this kind that the patients themselves are capable of a degree of happiness which is infectious, infectious to the visitor and infectious, too, to the staff.
As I have said, I took my wife and two young children. Frankly, I was not sure whether to take my children, but come they did, and, even though they are very young, they were, I believe, able to share in the feeling that the place is a happy one. I am certain that the emphasis which we can now develop in community involvement will mean that this is more and more true in the future.
It is particularly important that the staff should be able to share in this feeling. We have heard criticisms of the staff at some of these places, and we know that there have been outrageous things done. But we know also—my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) was right to stress this—that over the years the staffs at these hospitals have done a splendid and heroic job. They, also, need encouragement. The greater community participation which is developing and the increased coming and going are just as important from the point of view of staff welfare as they are from the point of view of the patients. I was rather touched when the doctor in charge of the institution told me that he had just been talking to a man who had been married to a woman who already


had three children, all of whom were subnormal. One or more of them were in that hospital. The mother had died a short time before, but the man had continued to visit the hospital. The doctor had said, "It is good of you to go on coming here although these are not your own children." The man replied, "It is my privilege." The doctor was clearly moved by that, by the way in which people are prepared to go on accepting that kind of responsibility in circumstances which may well be difficult.
I do not want to be unduly sentimental about this, although sentiment keeps creeping in. We must recognise that there is a darker side to the picture. I refer to the familiar story of the backlog, the appalling overcrowding. Another side of the picture which is beginning to cause a good deal of concern to doctors is the deep ethical problem facing some of them. I approach this matter with some diffidence, because it is difficult to talk about. The doctors working in this field must face up to the question of how far to go in keeping alive some new-born children who might otherwise have died at birth and who may, in the doctors' expectation, not have a serious prospect of a happy life.
I would not dream of advocating euthanasia, nor do I dispute that the vast majority of handicapped children are capable of a real degree of happiness. They give out enough and take enough from life to justify their existence by any standards. The fact that they are capable of being loved and of loving is in a sense the real justification. But we must recognise that there are some people of whom that is not true. Doctors are beginning to be faced with a considerable problem. The classic instance is the condition known as spina bifida. Essentially the problem here is that if the child is not operated on at birth it is likely to die, but if it does survive it will almost certainly survive in a very poor condition, a much worse condition than if the doctors operated. If they operate they may achieve total success or simply prolong the life of someone whose life will, so far as can be judged, be at a very low level.
I would like to quote from an article written by Dr. Henry Miller, of Newcastle

University, which appeared in the Listener on 1st July. He wrote :
Twelve years ago a group of dedicated and expert paediatricians in Sheffield deliberately decided to admit and treat all cases of meningomyelocele, or spinabifida where the spinal cord is present in the sac that protrudes at the site of the bony defect. Between 1959 and 1969 nearly 1,200 infants were treated, of whom more than 80 per cent. were admitted within 24 hours of birth.…
The results of this massive surgical experiment are the most favourable that have ever been recorded. They are, however, profoundly disappointing, and support the critical and conservative approach to treatment rather than that of the enthusiastic interventionist.… Careful follow-up studies show that less than 10 per cent. of those originally admitted escaped severe crippling. Two out of five supporters are mentally retarded, and four have no bladder control. Many have required multiple operations, and have suffered distressing complications among which infections of the urinary tract and the brain itself are conspicuous.
He gives other examples, and then says :
The implications of these findings for the infants, for their families and for society are disturbing. Indeed, if all the cases in the country were treated in this way we would soon have 10,000 such crippled children alive and would ultimately have to support between 20,000 and 30,000 crippled adults in the community. Such socio-economic problems should not in themselves decide the issue, but it is also clear from this important experiment that the interests of the patient with a severe lesion are not served by operation which can mean only a life of surgical misery and severe residual handicap.
This is a very difficult problem for the medical profession and for society as a whole to have to face, but there are some points I must stress. First, we are talking about a very small minority of the handicapped. Secondly, I do not think that we are talking about the allocation of resources but rather about an ethical problem. Thirdly, we must accept that is not a problem for the politicians to decide : it is one which the doctors must decide for themselves. They must make the decision whether it is right or wrong to try to prolong the life of someone who, at birth, faces a tremendous risk. It is right that the politicians should be prepared, as representatives of the public, to give a degree or backing to the doctors who are faced with this difficult ethical consideration, and that we should accept that doctors should be able to rely on the public to support them in the decisions they make.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend say how long such children are likely to live?

Mr. Raison: Increasingly the tendency is for them to live longer. Some of them have, I believe, symptoms associated with mongolism, and the life expectation of mongols is going up the whole time.
My point essentially is that we must trust the doctors. A distinguished American professor, Paul Beeson, has said that :
If civilisation means anything you must trust people with a long cultural tradition to act in a humane way.
Clearly, the principle that the doctor will work on is :
Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive Officiously to keep alive.
Naturally not to keep patients alive goes against the grain of medical ethics and of the whole nursing profession. I must reiterate that I am talking about a very small number of cases where the need may be different. But we must give doctors our understanding and trust.
I have said enough, I hope, to give the feeling that I believe that we are now on the move; that we have reached the stage where we can expect a concentration of public interest and public sympathy in the whole of this area which has not existed in the past. I believe that my right hon. Friend's document is a reflection of this.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and hope to take up some of his thoughtful and positive remarks. He took the opposite view to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on a question that is becoming a rather tense dispute among those who are anxious to help the mentally-handicapped. I refer to the controversy as to whether we should now accept as a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend feels we should, the closing of all sub-normality hospitals within 15 years. The argument for this has been put forward very persuasively by a number of good friends of the mentally-handicapped. We think of Miss Ann Shearer, for example. The case was well argued by my hon. Friend on the ground that this was a challenging, precise target by which to

measure the progress we make in providing community care for the mentally-handicapped.
It can be argued as he did so well, that the idea of a hospital for the mentally-handicapped is in many ways anomalous and inappropriate. It is anomalous that, say, a mentally-handicapped adolescent who has gone successfully through a junior training centre and who has coped quite well should go into a residential institution called a hospital with a medical and staff nurses. It is not really appropriate to what he has experienced so far.
Even if it were medical care which he wanted and had gone to hospital to get, I am afraid that there would not be enough medical staff to give the care required. For those reasons, one has considerable sympathy for those who say that the whole concept of the hospital should give way and that for those mentally-handicapped persons who cannot be helped with community care the answer must be a general hospital and not a specialised subnormality hospital.
This has been admirably set out by those who support the concept and their case contains a number of important truths. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Aylesbury had some good points to make when he argued that it could not now be dogmatically said that there would never be a subnormality hospital of any kind. I think I have visited the hospital which he visited—I am almost certain which it is. If so, it is an example of a hospital which gives not only more expert, but possibly more personal care to mentally handicapped people than they might sometimes get in community institutions. That hospital may be instanced as a good way in which to look after those who need protective care.
However, my conclusion is that we should not tear ourselves to pieces trying to decide this question now. There is so much which is universally agreed in the way of urgent action needed to increase community care and to empty the hospitals that we ought not to start arguing about a decision which need not be taken now. I do not know why the Minister should be asked dogmatically to commit himself at this stage to saying that in 15 years there will not be one subnormality hospital left, however small,


however well staffed, however well appointed and however seriously handicapped the patients in them may be. Without prejudice to the argument that that may be the right thing to go for, I do not see why we should ask the Minister to decide it now. Let us go for what is practicable now over the next five or ten years in the basic things which urgently need to be done.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), who introduced the Motion, ought not to be discouraged by the comparatively empty benches on either side of the House. It has been one of my observations over many years that there is no close correlation—when we are discussing social problems—between the number of Members present in the Chamber and the amount of human suffering caused by the problem under discussion. I do not know the reason. It is possible that it has something to do with the introduction of party politics—and the hon. Gentleman slightly lowered the tone in his admirable speech by introducing a partisan note. The truth is that if the social problem relates to some ideological factor, such as raising the cost of school meals in which the Government have been seriously at fault recently, even though in human suffering that does not measure up to mental handicap, more Members tend to be attracted to the Chamber.
I do not wish this to be a partisan issue. Throughout the years and throughout the decades every party has been equally to blame for neglecting this important problem, not only the problem of the mentally handicapped, but the whole problem of mental illness. It is extraordinary how disproportionately little attention is given by the political parties to the whole subject of mental health. Anybody who studies the matter with a clear mind will discover that the greatest obstacle to human well-being in this country is mental disorder in all its degrees and forms. The priorities of all the political parties, as shown in the election manifestos and in attendance in the Chamber at debates such as these, are astonishingly wrong, from top to bottom. It is high time that this situation was changed, and I congratulate the hon. Member on his choice of subject and I

hope that he will persevere in bringing it to the attention of the House.
None of us nowadays has any excuse for ignorance and nor has the public. Whatever excuse there may have been, there is none now. There is magnificent television coverage by the B.B.C., about the problems of mental handicap and mental sickness, and in the last five years it has had a pronounced effect on public attitudes. There have been several unofficial publications—the book "Put Away" by Dr. Pauline Morris—the campaign by the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, the excelent report published by the New Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped, the steady stream of publicity from the National Society for Menially Handicapped Children, the Spastics Society, the National Association for Mental Health, the Mind Campaign, which is just being launched by the National Association.
Finally, we have had one revealing and powerful official document after another. There was the admirable report of the Hospital Advisory Services, Dr. Baker's report, which was very important and which showed what a good committee that was. That report ended simply with a letter from a charge nurse in a mental hospital, and I am sure that the Minister has noted it. It was a letter to Dr. Baker saying that he might like to know in advance of his projected visit to the hospital that the following necessary and overdue reforms had been made : first, the toothbrushes had arrived for patients in the ward—and so on. This was splendid and it showed the importance and the strength of the Hospital Advisory Committee and it showed that this work had been properly handled by Dr. Baker and his colleagues, but it revealed an appalling situation in some of our worst hospitals.
We have had the Ely Hospital report and the Farleigh Hospital report and now the White Paper which is a frank and honest account of the problem. We now have no excuse. I shall not repeat what is often said in all the documents about the appalling conditions in some hospitals, for I take it for granted that hon. Members will know what they are.
When we talk about overcrowding, as the hon. Member for Leicester, Southwest did so convincingly, we ought to consider also the understaffing, which is


not quite the same thing. If anything, I am more horrified by understaffing than by overcrowding. It is true that the number of nurses has gone up in the last decade, as the White Paper says, and that is good, but we all know that the problem has increased, too, because the degree of handicap to be found in the hospitals is much more severe. Many more severely handicapped children are now living a long time and the nursing task in the hospitals is thus made much heavier, even though the number of patients per nurse is reduced. The result is that staffs may be discouraged and keenness and morale may suffer.
I am always immensely impressed by how well nursing staffs face their problems. I visited Farleigh Hospital a month or two ago. If one wants to know what the problem is and what caused the fearful tragedy at Farleigh when three nurses were convicted in the courts of persistent cruelty to patients, and if one wants to know how that kind of thing can happen, one should go to Farleigh and hang around the North Ward, where these things happened, try to imagine oneself with the job of a nurse there, dealing with young men severely mentally handicapped, mostly incontinent and many prone to violence and many epileptic, with only one other helper to look after 36 such patients for an 11½ hour shift without a break.
It is putting on someone more than any normal person can bear. What is more, I do not think that I exaggerate when I say that the reproduction of similar circumstances in other hospitals would be bound to lead to other Farleigh incidents. That is bound to be true.
At the heart of the trouble as much as anything is the understaffing, though admittedly Farleigh also revealed a shocking story of bad management. I shall not go into the details, since they are plainly on the record. Instead, I come back to the understaffing and perhaps I might ask the Secretary of State about it. He was kind enough to make a constructive reply to a Question which I put down about Farleigh in which he accepted almost all the recommendations of the Farleigh Commission. He said that he would ask boards to consider especially the needs of the most difficult patients. Has anything concrete come out of that? He also said that he was

pursuing the code of conduct laying down guide lines for handling difficult and sometimes violent patients which was drafted under the auspices of the National Association for Mental Health. I think that the right hon. Gentleman accepts it in principle. Has he carried it further in some way?
Before I leave Farleigh, of course there have been some improvements, including some to the North Ward. There is new hope under the fresh and positive medical leadership of Dr. Carter.
To return to the staffing point, will the extra money go to more staff? If it does, the result will be a better staff ratio, better working conditions, more staff recruited and more staff staying. And that in turn will mean that more staff are available to train the mentally handicapped and to modify their incontinence and their disturbed behaviour so that more of them can go out into the community. The result is a bigger turnover. The whole is self-perpetuating once one obtains a real push on the staffing question. I want to emphasise that most of all. But I am sure that everyone will agree that the quickest way to improve staff ratios is not to let people go into hospitals at the beginning. This is the major advantage of community care.
There is plenty of evidence that patients coming out of subnormality hospitals and mental hospitals and going into group homes, some kind of guardianship, and sheltered accommodation of one kind and another are a great deal happier. What is more, such a system costs less. Above all, it liberates hospital staffs and nursing talent for those who still have to remain in the hospitals. That is the justification for giving priority to it.
How are we to get it? Let me welcome the Secretary of State's £100 million. I said in his presence at a conference that we both attended that those who are interested in the mentally handicapped and mentally sick have watched streams of Ministers with good policies and good intentions go by and we have been disillusioned. The only test of a Minister of Health is whether he manages to blackmail his Cabinet colleagues into giving him the money necessary to carry out his policies. The Secretary of State has not made a bad start in that respect.
We are to have this money spent, we hope, on emptying hospitals rather than on improving them. We agree that they need improvement, and clearly some money must be spent on them. However, I do not get the impression from the White Paper that the financial priority is on emptying the hospitals rather than on capital expenditure on them, and I should like to be reassured on this obvious point. It may be that I have misunderstood some of the figures. However, paragraph 259 of the White Paper says :
On the hospital side, it is hoped that capital expenditure in these four years will reach about £30 million.
Can we assume that it is carefully calculated that these hospitals gain more from £30 million worth of capital expenditure than from reducing the number of patients by spending the money on the provision of community care and stopping people going to hospitals in the first place?
My hon. Friend referred to pressures on local authorities. What pressures are there on the bad authorities to pull up their socks? Will the Minister explain how he sees the point made so admirably by my hon. Friend that some local authorities are mean-minded, selfish, indifferent, insensitive and need to be brought into line. A number of them are very good. We should like the Minister to explain his views of them.
May we have published officially a league table of local authorities? I do not think that we have one yet. Christian Action has had a go at working out some kind of league table. Just as after the war we had a housing league table showing up the bad local authorities, let us have one for those providing community care for the mentally handicapped and the mentally sick, so that we know where our own local authorities stand and which are the backsliders.
All in all, I am not altogether satisfied with the priority of expenditure or with the speed of the timetable. But it is a move forward to have a target and to have £100 million. We must give the credit to the Minister.
As other hon. Members have said, public opinion needs to be persuaded, not only because members of the public are the ratepayers and the taxpayers, but

also because it will be our attitudes, either of kindness or aversion, towards those coming out of hospitals which make success or failure of the enterprise. Public opinion, therefore, is keyed to the whole problem.
There are still examples of sheer prejudice and bigotry preventing the establishment of community buildings to help the mentally handicapped. However, I agree that, in general, there has been a great improvement in the last 10 or 15 years in the public's understanding of the nature of mental handicap and mental sickness, though not perhaps in its appreciation of the scale of the problem or of the urgency with which matters need putting right, or of the possibility of alleviating suffering. There is still a slight feeling that it is all God-given and that there is nothing much that Governments, Members of Parliament or local authorities can do.
As for the nature of mental handicap and the anxiety and aversion towards mental handicap and mental sickness, there have undoubtedly been great advances in the last 10 or 15 years. I liked the reference by the hon. Member for Aylesbury to the subnormality hospital fete in his constituency to which he took his wife and two children. He reminded me of a programme which I saw on television a month or two ago with my own children. It was a very good programme about mentally handicapped children, and we saw on the screen in close-up the faces of severely handicapped children. That would never have been possible only 10 or 15 years ago. As a professional broadcaster at that time, I remember doing some programmes about mental sickness. We managed to achieve a great breakthrough. We took a camera into a mental hospital. However, we could not show the faces of the patients. That was much too strong meat for the public at that time. The hon. Gentleman said that when he was approaching this hospital he felt a certain apprehension. I recall that when I made those programmes the idea was mooted that I should spend a few days and nights as a patient in a mental hospital to convey better to viewers what it was about. I agreed to do this.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I felt a slight apprehension as I advanced upon the ward where I had been allocated a


bed. I hope that the House will not take me wrong, but, after being there a few hours, I felt completely at home. This is the solution to the whole problem—the solution to the public attitude to mental illness and handicap—to get closer to it and to see the mentally handicapped and the mentally sick not as a large rather forbidding army of people, but as individuals with their own problems, families, personalities, and so on. That is at the back of the reason for getting community care going. We shall then be bringing the public face to face with a great human problem instead of hiding it behind the castle walls of huge Victorian asylums. Once again, as was true centuries ago, the public will be getting into contact with a great human problem, and nothing but good can come of that.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, Southwest (Mr. Tom Boardman) on choosing this Motion for debate today. He has done us a great service. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on an excellent speech and on kindling my original interest in the subject by those television programmes to which he referred.
I had not visited any form of mental institution before becoming a Member of Parliament. I have subsequently visited training centres, schools for educationally subnormal children and mental hospitals. They are indeed most encouraging places to visit because of the sense not of hopelessness but of help, care and compassion which they give. Fortunately, the institutions serving my constituency must be somewhat model, because I could not put upon them the strictures which some hon. Members have expressed in the debate.
But I shall not forget the statement of one of the trained nurses at the Royal Eastern Counties Hospital in Colchester which serves my constituency, that by A.D. 2000 we would have a bed space shortage of 60,000. That figure must make us realise that we cannot wait forever to decide whether it is hostels or hospitals which we want. There is a pressing need for buildings of one kind or another, and we must do something about that problem rather quickly.
While I like the concept of community care, because it presents a rosy picture, there is an assumption underlying it that many of the mentally handicapped are not so severely handicapped as in fact they are. I do not believe that the severely mentally handicapped can ever live in community hostels with the assistance only of a warden and perhaps of one or two social workers. They will probably be institutionalised for the rest of their lives. Therefore, we must make sure that the buildings in which they live are adequate for their purpose.
We must be careful—I say this with some care—not to create more mentally handicapped people in our society. Some months ago I watched a "Panorama" programme about the problem of the homeless mentally sick in London. They were mainly schizophrenics who went to hospitals, were given crash treatment, and then pushed back into society because there was neither the bed space nor the stall available to give the long-term treatment which they required. Those people gradually deteriorate again when they return to society. They drift towards doss houses for their homes. As we know, those doss houses have no social or welfare workers attached to them. Therefore, these people get into more dire straits until ultimately they become the drifters in our society who either find their way back to hospital or end up on park benches as the flotsam of the world in which we live.
If we are not to create this category of mentally handicapped person, we must insist that all hospitals releasing such people into the community at least informs their local authority that they are doing so, so that they are not just pitched out with nowhere to go but come under the guidance and control of some local organisation.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the problems of the mentally handicapped child and his or her parents. This is primarily a problem for the community and for the family. If there is any single statement which is emphasised again and again in the White Paper, it is that love and affection is required by the mentally handicapped just as much as by the normal, and that there is an undoubted advantage in allowing such a child to stay, with its parents and to enjoy the benefits of home life.
Having said that, and before developing the point, I think we have to decide what level of mental handicap we are talking about. Here I take issue with the statement in the White Paper that we should continue to use the expression "mental handicap". If the World Health Organisation thinks that "mentally retarded" is the right expression and the Americans, the French and the Norwegians use that expression, why should we go out on a limb and use a phrase which in many ways is inaccurate? I think that the concept of "mentally retarded" is right. It allows us to have various levels. We can talk about severe or not so severe retardation of the patient. It is also more accurate when one is talking about somebody whose I.Q. is down at the bottom of the scale and therefore is clearly retarded compared with a normal person. But I am appealing for us not to use the expression "mental handicap" because, if we attend international conferences to discuss this kind of problem, we shall find that we are using an expression which others simply do not understand. However, I was glad to notice that even the White Paper used the expression "mentally retarded", and I shall try to continue to use that phrase during my speech.
The voluntary societies—and my constituency is blessed with a magnificent Society for the Care of the Mentally Handicapped Child—can do a great deal both to raise funds and to make families which have mentally retarded children realise that they are not the pariahs of society, but people who have had an extra burden laid upon their shoulders which, but for the grace of God, could be on any one of us.
But as the Appendix to the White Paper points out some mental handicap or retardation is genetic and can be carried as an hereditary disease. In this context, here I want to endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to the extent that I think we must recognise the use of abortion, and of contraception initially, and even of sterilisation, to ensure that such births do not take place.
I recall a Catholic couple coming to see me. Their daughter, who was mentally retarded, was going to have a child. The trouble was that she had gont to a

hospital to have an abortion but, somehow or other, had been frightened about the whole business and the operation had not been carried out. She was then at a stage when she could not find a doctor who would perform the operation. I do not blame the doctor for ducking the moral issue involved, but the concern of those parents and, I understand, of their daughter as the moment drew nearer was very real.
The thought that someone is going to bear a child which, by the greatest likelihood, will be severely mentally handicapped is a daunting one for any young person. I am glad that the appendix to the report touches on this issue, because I think that we should consider how we can prevent the birth of children who are not likely to have much chance of having any quality of life as we appreciate that expression.
That brings me to the point raised by my hon. Friend about how we can help the family which has a severely mentally handicapped child, who wants to maintain that child at home, but who find the stress of doing so sometimes almost, if not completely, intolerable. The realisation that they never can have a normal life, certainly no social life, and the consciousness that the stress will be an everlasting burden may overcome any feelings of affection, and may presuade the parents that they must have their child institutionalised. Though they may believe that it is on a temporary basis, it sometimes lasts for the rest of the child's life.
My constituency is served by the Royal Eastern Counties Hospital, which is about 40 miles away. Any child severely mentally retarded finding its way into that institution is not going to be able to see much of its parents. Bit by bit the visits will become more intermittent and the child will become more and more an institutionalised patient.
That is inescapable, and when I asked my Society for the Mentally Handicapped Child what it would like me to say this afternoon, it said that I must emphasise the need for more short-stay hostels. I am glad that my hon. Friend touched on this, because I do not think there is any doubt that such hostels, possibly as an adjunct of a general hospital within the area, and thus drawing its funds both from the local authority and from the


National Health Service, could provide the breathing space that is so desperately needed by families faced with this sort of problem.
Sometimes such a hostel will become a home for these severely mentally retarded children, but at least it will allow for the possibility of their going home on occasion. More than that, it will maintain the continuing visiting which allows people to feel that they belong to somebody. I believe that such hostels should become part of the Government's policy because they are perhaps one of the most likely means of relieving the tremendous burden on the family that comes from someone in it being severely mentally handicapped.
I want to emphasise the new realisation that mentally handicapped people can be educated, can be trained, and can be made more able to stand on their own feet. The more a mentally handicapped person can do for himself, the easier he can live within the community, and at home. It follows from that that the more he lives at home, the less space is required in hospitals, and thus we gain all the way along the line.
But if the training is to be good, the quality of the teacher must also be good, and the desperate need, at least in the Greater London area, is to keep the teachers once they have been trained. I have in my constituency a school for the educationally subnormal, which is also a training establishment. The trouble is not that of finding people to train, but that of holding them once they are trained, particularly if they are married.
After 14 years, with all the additional allowances that are available in the Greater London area a teacher at that school earns £1,900 a year. That is not the sort of salary that will hold a man who is married and has children, when he can get a similar job in another area where the cost of living is very much lower. There is a need to offer these teachers a special allowance, otherwise this continual wastage of trained staff in the London area will pose considerable problems and stresses in teaching and training establishment for the mentally handicapped
As has been said before in this debate, and I shall repeat myself, I think that the stigma and the shadow of what is

mental handicap has passed to a great extent. The realisation that has come upon most of us that it could be our child has made us see this thing for what it is, an act of providence, not wanted, but not necessarily totally destructive of family life.
It is right that voluntary organisations should want to help, and I conclude by commenting on what I consider to be one of the most pleasant stories that I have heard. In my constituency the sixth formers from a number of schools have made it their task to visit the school for the educationally subnormal to help those children, to take them out for walks, and generally to try to improve the quality of their lives. I think that such compassion for young people from young people holds out a bright hope for the future.

5.17 p.m.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: I, too, should like to thank the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) for raising this debate this afternoon. All those who have spoken this afternoon have emphasised that the service needs extra facilities and extra cash, but it also needs extra public sympathy.
One of the things which concerns me about the White Paper is the emphasis on domiciliary and community care. Too often that phrase sounds good but when put into practice means very little. One has only to work for the service for the mentally handicapped to see the heartache, the concern and the worry of parents about what is going to happen to their children. Many things can be done to help handicapped people to be cared for in their own homes, but hospitalisation will have to continue until a far greater range of services is performed by voluntary bodies and local authorities
One of the first things that has to be considered when thinking about severely mentally handicapped children is housing facilities. Many local authorities award what are called medical points to certain categories of people on their housing lists. Very often extra points go to those who have physical disabilities, while mental disabilities are lowly rated, but the fact remains that unless there are decent housing conditions for a mentally handicapped child the alternative is for him to be placed in an institution.
I have cases in my constituency of parents living in back-to-back houses, sharing toilets, and trying to bring up mentally handicapped children at home, but eventually having to give up and allow their children to go into an institution. The Minister should tell local authorities that they should give priority in respect of housing for the mentally disabled as they do for those with physical disabilities. When I refer to housing I am not referring to flats or maisonettes. A seriously mentally disabled child living in a block of flats in my constituency causes many problems because it is a constant rocker in a chair. The chair is continually banging on the wall and causing annoyance to the neighbours. The provision of housing for these people is important.
Reference has been made to hostels and homes. I ask the Minister, whenever he intends to open a hostel or convert a building, to launch a publicity campaign of the kind that he launched recently to tell the public about the general services that are available, so that the local people are carried along with him. When local authorities and voluntary bodies attempt to convert large houses in residential areas I am worried at their being hindered by the outcry that arises when the local people realise that the work is being done for children or adolescent mentally handicapped people.
If the Minister could produce the same kind of public response as was produced in respect of the Government's financial measures this year we could go a long way to being able to provide these hostels or homes—call them what you like—in built-up areas and we could persuade the public to join in and help. As it is, more often than not, whatever good a local authority or voluntary body may feel about establishing a hostel or converting a house in a built-up area, its application is turned down because of the pressure brought to bear by local residents' associations.
Another possibility that we in Birmingham have used successfully—and I claim a little credit for it—is the establishment of residential schools belonging to the city. For two of the six weeks' holiday period now coming up we allow severely mentally handicapped children to use these schools so that they have a

fortnight's holiday, which at the same time gives the parents an opportunity of a fortnight's holiday away from their children. The parents thus get the same kind of rest and relaxation as is given to those sons and daughters who look after their elderly parents. The extension of facilities in this respect could readily be taken up in other parts of the country.
The White Paper refers to teachers in hospital. Under the new Act there will be a greater integration of what we used to call training centres under the education system, but I hope that the Secretary of State will seriously consider the question of teaching units inside hospitals for the handicapped. As many hon. Members have said, these hospitals will be with us for a long time, and if we can provide schools in hospitals for the physically disabled I hope that the Secretary of State will seriously consider extending this facility to children and adolescents who are mentally handicapped and cannot take their place in ordinary training centres.
The White Paper emphasises the serious problem arising from the shortage of adult training centres. Many local authorities—Birmingham is no exception—have provided purpose-built junior training centres. They have increased their numbers and enlarged them. They have spent a great deal of thought on how best to cater for these people, but a backlog has been formed, because when these children reach school leaving age they cannot be passed on anywhere else. It is unfortunate that although there has been a surge forward during the last eight to ten years in the provision of junior training centres the necessary impetus has not been developed to create the establishment of a sufficient number of adult training centres.
The White Paper rightly refers to this matter, and I hope that in the talks that are to take place with local authorities and regional hospital boards this situation will be emphasised—otherwise the good work that has been started in the junior training centres will be wasted.
We also need to extend the use of health centres. Many ante-natal care centres are not utilised to the full extent because mothers use the family doctor. In the Ladywood constituency we have a fine nursery group run by the health


centre, and its work is stimulated by the sixth formers in surrounding schools who, as part of their youth voluntary service, help to make a successful unit in a health centre, where the mentally handicapped children are clearly seen by the ordinary patients who use the centre. In that way the public see at first hand, and clearly, the way in which we are trying to overcome the disabilities of these children.
The White Paper mentioned many items of research. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the research undertaken by the Children's Hospital in Birmingham, which is very concerned at the possibility that lead is causing mental retardation. It is looking into the intake of lead by children living in down-town areas, where peeling paint and all the other things that we find in decaying property may be leading to mental retardation. I mention this because it is an interesting thesis. That research work is also short of funds, and any help that the Secretary of State is able to give would be welcomed. It is working alongside the University of Aston in this research.
The mental health service has always been the Cinderella service—a service that we have tended to sweep under the carpet because the majority of hon. Members and the general public have found it somewhat distasteful. This afternoon we should pay tribute to all the voluntary bodies who, for many years, have worked to draw the attention of the public, hon. Members and Ministers to the serious problem of the mentally handicapped. It must hearten many voluntary societies who are working in this field to realise that one day in the life of Parliament is being devoted to this serious subject. It is still a Cinderella service, but the White Paper goes a long way towards extending some of the provisions that all hon. Members want to see.
The White Paper continues the work initiated by the previous Government. If we want the White Paper to be successful, we must recognise that local authorities—there are many good ones whose members are as concerned as hon. Members about the provision for the mentally handicapped—are thwarted by lack of finance. If we want more domiciliary care, we must give local authorities the necessary finance. The spirit is there,

but so often, because there are many calls upon a local authority's finances, the services cannot be provided.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Charles Simeons: I have listened with great interest to the views about the future expressed by many hon. Members. I will not give the Secretary of State any advice. I will merely tell him that I want him to do something which will not cost money. I want him to see that the right people—that is, the violent people—are in hospitals and not left to become total burdens on their mothers, who are the ones who bear the brunt of the difficulties caused by any abnormal child.
When they are small, they are lovable creatures, but at the age of six or seven, they become quite violent and extremely strong, and even uncontrollable. I would instance the case of Nigel Uvanoviz, in my constituency. The eighth of eight children, he suffered from gargoylism. This made him unable to react in the way that normal children do. He was violent from time to time and incontinent, but the family loved him. When he reached the age of eight, he became so strong that no one could do anything with him. The Ministry and the local authority were aware of this problem, but on each occasion that they tried, there was no vacancy for him in a hospital.
The mother said to me, "I can stand it no more; I am leaving home". I went to see her and found that the boy had a capacity for moving around in the dark, so that, when they had gone to sleep, he would creep downstairs and wreak absolute havoc. He would take knives and cut his mother's legs. He burned the money; he put all the Christmas food in the sofa.
One of his older sisters had to be kept home from school to look after him. The local authority did not prosecute her, because that would have meant exposing the whole subject and it would have meant that something would have to be done. No one was prepared to do anything. I do not mean by that that they were not willing to do it.
I was faced with this problem—either the mother left home, in which case the boy would be taken into care with the


other children and would end up at Bromham Hospital that evening, or we took him there and the mother stayed at home. The hospital was sympathetic but said that it would have to consider the case. But I saw the mother's problem and her immense distress. She was right at the end of her tether. I realised that there was only one thing to do, so I took him to the hospital, and, after pointing out that I had every sympathy with their problems, I left him there and wished them a happy Christmas.
The mother was very sorry that he had gone, as were all the rest of the family, but it means that that family has stayed together and that that mother has remained sane and can look after the family, who are united and go to see the boy from time to time.
A little later, I went to a party for the mentally handicapped. The drummer in the band occasionally sang incredibly well. On asking, I was told that he came from Bromham Hospital. When I asked what he was doing playing in the band, I was told that he was very good but that he had nowhere to go, so he had to be kept in the hospital. The point that I hope my right hon. Friend will note is that, if people like that had somewhere to go, Nigel Uvanoviz could have got into the hospital much earlier.
But this poses a problem which has been recognised earlier. The problem is that, unless there is a group in the hospital—some "walking wounded" as well as "wounded"—the burden on the staff is so great that they cannot cope. If all the patients are violent, the burden becomes intolerable. Therefore, in these hospitals there may be only a limited time for the staff to go on one tour.
Until recently, I was chairman of the management committee of a home for the chronic sick—one of the Cheshire Homes. We found that there was a period for which the staff would work with the great devotion which they always show, but that then there needed to be a turnover of fresh people. There is a period of human endurance both for the mothers and for the hospital staff. I would ask my right hon. Friend not only to look into this but to tell these management committees to ensure that the names of those in the hospitals who could go out-

side are sent to him so that he can assess the vacancies which would result.
I was prompted to speak today also because of another case in my constituency which is becoming similar. I will not pretend that one can follow my caurse of action twice. One cannot dump boys at hospitals all the time, because that means that the system would break down.
This boy is 11 or 12. He was put in the local authority centre, but they would not keep him, because he was too violent, and they sent him home. I will give my right hon. Friend his name and I hope that he will make some inquiries. After we made some inquiries, the Dedisham School for Autistic Children interviewed the parents and sent them a letter saying :
…we did not feel that Michael would fit in with the school as it is likely to develop … I cannot make the offer of a place here for him as a result of our meeting last month
This is because he is too violent, so his mother must bear the burden.
According to the father, her problem is even greater than this, because he is becoming so violent that he throws things around and is always breaking windows, which are expensive to replace. The mother would like to go out to work to pay for the extra expense, but she cannot because someone must look after him.
We should look to the future, but we should also do something for mothers who, through no fault of their own, must bear the burden of children who are not only subnormal but violent.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I too welcome this debate to which I have listened with great interest as someone interested in the problems of the mentally handicapped. I would dearly love to follow the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) and relate details of some of the harrowing cases in my constituency. I am sure that the Secretary of State is well aware of some of them. We could go on for the rest of the evening giving these examples, but I will restrain myself.
I have been actively engaged in this field for some years as chairman of a fairly active mental health association in Camden. We do as much as is humanly


possible in this field. I pay tribute to all the voluntary workers engaged in the tremendous task of running these services. I would go further and pay tribute to all the dedicated, devoted staffs of hospitals. Bad as some of the hospitals are, the staff work in most difficult conditions and have to put up with a tremendous amount. They deserve the gratitude of all of us, as we certainly know who have been fortunate enough to visit the hospitals and see the problems that exist.
I, too, welcome this White Paper and many of the new approaches and the thoughts in it and much of the thinking behind it—for the development of community care in particular. I have some reservations, of course. Like other hon. Members, I have waited since 1959 for the implementation of many of the ideas and suggestions. They have been bandied around for a long time but they never seem to get further than a committee or a sub-committee or a working party or a local council group. Heaven knows, if ever there was a subject for which there were more committees, or which was so over-committeed, than that of mental health, I do not know of it. I suppose I have listened to millions of words spoken by thousands of experts on the subject of mental health or mental ill-health.
An aspect I particularly want to emphasise and concentrate on is practical application of ideas. This is where one gets a bit impatient. I should like to see something radical happening before it is too late. I am becoming impatient with the long overdue implementation of some of these ideas, many of which many of us welcomed as far back as 1959. I think there has been a major shift in public opinion in the last few years. I know of the work done in my own locality by voluntary workers through public meetings, film shows, bazaars, in trying to bring home the problem to the community, and they have had a tremendous impact. I welcome it and hope it will continue.
Having said that, we now must put more emphasis on community care. As others have said, this in itself raises many problems, and the biggest of them is finance. It is all very well to set up these committees and to say we need this or that, that we will do this or that, but

in the end we come up against the question of cash and we have to cut the suit according to the cloth. This inevitably means discussion of priorities in the allocation of the limited resources. We all understand that there must, unfortunately, be some limitation on them at this stage. So we must have priorities. If we were all of us to draw up our own separate lists of priorities, I doubt whether we would find any two the same. There would be similarities, but they would not be the same, if each one of us drew up his own individual list of priorities of what he would like to do in serving the mentally handicapped and for the treatment of mental illness.
What in this debate seems to have come high among the priorities is the question of day care and junior training centres, or places where adolescents can be trained. Indeed, that might well figure on anybody's list. I hope it will be on the Secretary of State's list when he advises local authorities on how they might be prepared to spend some of this money. Many of us, when we visit these hospitals, feel a bit worried—I certainly am every time I visit them, and I visit a good many—at the number of people who seem simply to sit on beds reading newspapers, or doodling with a pencil, or perhaps reading books, but with nothing more constructive to do. It seems that far too many of them wander aimlessly about the wards, or about the grounds if the weather is fine. It seems to me that there should be some kind of occupational therapy units and that they should have a priority; there is urgent need for activity which could be related to the patient's return to normal life—that is, to the community. I say this will all due respect to the kind of therapy which goes on, some of which is very good, but we must take it a stage further and link it with the patient's ultimate return to the community. The activity could be something different from weaving baskets or making the various gadgets which they make in the wards, and so on. We have to think further along these lines of developing that kind of service, both in and out of hospitals.
When we consider day care I hope we shall not hear somebody say, "That is the hospital's job; that can be done by the hospitals", or the hospitals say,


"It ought to be done by the local authority". That would mean that we would go on discussing for another 10 years whose responsibility it is.
I shall refrain from discussing now the question which I have taken up with the Secretary of State and his Department about younger people, adolescents, in geriatric wards when they should be in some other place, but an aspect of the matter which worries me is that there are people whose problems could have been studied a long way back—in childhood. There is need for diagnosis earlier in order to process the problems.
Another of my priorities would be some form of child guidance, some family unit, some family assessment clinic. With all the new reforms instituted piecemeal by hospitals or by local authorities, the service has become fragmented. It makes it very difficult for mothers of young children who are suspected of having a problem if there are half a dozen different places to which they should take them or to which they may be directed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) said, they start with the health committee, if one is fortunate enough to have a health committee in the area; but then the child may be referred to a school medical officer or to the welfare people, or even to a school teacher; or it may be referred somewhere else; a psychiatrist may visit the school and may eventually catch up with the problem. I would suggest that there should be a unit to assess the whole family at an early stage of a child's problem, because I have seldom found that such a problem comes in isolation; it is usually related to some wider problem affecting the whole family or arising from its environment. The family should be assessed at an early stage and steps taken to alleviate some of the more immediate problems.
I promised to be brief; I am grateful for having caught the eye of the Chair. I conclude by emphasising to the Minister that I hope that when he has discussions with the local authorities on priorities, or advises them, he will give some kind of guidance on how they will spend this extra money, that he will have a mind to family guidance clinics, and that he will help to avoid the difficulty of one service leaving the matter

to another so that nobody does anything in the end, and that he will have a mind to some practical application of these ideas. I think that we shall then be started on the right road.

5.50 p.m.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on raising a subject which has produced so constructive and so unusually non-controversial a debate. I agree strongly with the comments of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew): we have seen a very dramatic change in the last 20 years, and we are now getting on to the second phase. I remember that when I went to the Ministry of Health in 1951 there was not a mental hospital that did not have the majority of its doors locked. One went round preceded by someone with a key as though one were going into Wandsworth Prison. A pioneer in this progressive work was Dr. Rees, then superintendent of Warlingham Park who, in the face of the enormous fears of some of his contemporaries, opened every door.
As a public relations exercise, we had to get rid of the idea of asylums and or the belief that everyone who was in a mental hospital was dangerous. It was a very substantial job to educate the public, mainly because they never got behind those great gaunt walls, and never had the opportunity of seeing the patients within them, the overwhelming majority of whom were neither violent nor dangerous.
Having got the doors open, we had an opportunity to encourage more nursing staff in order to bring about a better standard, so that mental hospital nurses were recognised as being on a par with nurses in general hospitals, and it was recognised that because there is not the same dramatically quick turnover of patients, such nurses need a temperament of their own—that enormous patience, kindness and care which nurses in mental hospitals show, added to the increased skill needed now in the treatment. During this period there were the greatest advances in bringing about a more rapid turnover, and in encouraging people to accept mental hospital care instead of waiting until their condition became acute. We had this enormous advance in


medical science, when the new drugs made it possible to control, perhaps to aid, and in some cases to prevent people ever having to go into a mental hospital at all.
No one made a greater contribution to bringing these facts home to the general public than did the hon. Member for Woolwich, East in his outstanding television programmes on the subject, one of which I believe was done at Warlingham Park.
Alongside this faster turnover and increased knowledge we also had the Leagues of Friends. I hope that more and more of the mental hospitals will, as has practically every general hospital, have their Leagues of Friends. In this connection I have a story to tell of one of the first Leagues of Friends we were able to get in a mental hospital in the West Country. The hospital was large—about 3,000 patients—and we got the local W.V.S. to start things off. As a first exercise they asked, "How many of these people never have a visitor, or a letter or a birthday card?". They found that 700 of the patients had for years never had any communication from the outside world. They found "a friend" for everyone—friends who would take in a bunch of flowers from their garden or remember a birthday.
I remember attending an open day and fête at one local hospital and then going round the wards. One woman who had been there for 47 years had two very dog-eared birthday cards. When I asked, "Is it your birthday?" the sister whispered that the cards had been there for six weeks and that the patient would not part with them. Very simply, this woman replied, "Isn't it wonderful? My friends sent me birthday cards and brought me this birthday present", and from an equally grubby bit of tissue paper—it had been so handled—out came three handkerchiefs, from under her pillow.
As the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) said, the general public could do far more in breaking down the sort of feeling of prejudice that is so prevalent. When the Kent County Council tried to set up a hostel for the mentally handicapped, it was opposed in 17 different localities by local residents who did not want these people within their community.

After seven years of negotiations, the council found this 17th site, and I am proud to say that it is in my constituency.
I hope that every mental hospital catering for mentally handicapped children will have Leagues of Friends because although the turnover among young people is greater, there is still an enormous problem.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's allocation of £100 million over four years for building. I know that most of this money will go to day patient and outpatient provision, to hostels and community care centres, but we will always have with us the very elderly patients.
I went on one occasion to Preston Park where in a ward of very elderly females I asked the average age. The ward was overcrowded : a 36 bed—but with 67 patients—this was some years ago. Three of the patients were in their sixties, about 20 were in their seventies, the majority were in their eighties, the eldest resident then was 97, and the staff apologised because their 103-year-old had died the Friday before! That type of patient may be in for 20, 30 or 40 years. We must not lose sight of the fact that in the care, comfort and warmth and discipline they enjoy, patients are far more likely to live for many more years than they would if prone to accidents, the colds and the chills outside.
My right hon. Friend's development proposals will command all-party support. We should have more outpatient and day-patient provision, together with the control and aid that drugs can give. I hope that particular attention will be given to the day centres and places to which patients of handicapped children, to whom they are prepared to sacrifice their time and devotion, can turn to get a break by putting the child in responsible care, if only that they may have a fortnight's holiday.
Can people realise what it means for a normal young couple with, perhaps, two or three normal children never to be able to take advantage of one of those nice package deals abroad, because the handicapped child's social behaviour is so unfortunate that no hotel or boarding house will accept the family? Instead, the parents have to camp, or hire a cottage, in which case the mother has still to cook for the family and look after


the handicapped child : there is no holiday for her.
I am proud to say that the Bromley Society for the Mentally Handicapped is aiming to build its own centre. It has had considerable support from Bromley Council. It seeks to raise £25,000, and in nine months has already raised well over half that amount. It intends to set up its own centre where not only can children go for the day, with parents themselves having a rota to look after one another's children, but where, if mum wants a day off to go to the shops, or do something that she is able to do with her normal children, when it is not possible to take the handicapped child with them, the centre will provide the opportunity. There are no parents who demand our sympathy more than those who make the enormous sacrifice, the sacrifice of their matrimonial companionship, often the sacrifice of never being able to go out together and leave the child, and the sacrifice of spending far more hours and doing more than one would normally expect to have to do with children of similar ages.
With the programme outlined by my right hon. Friend, these people can have a break. It will keep more people out of the hospitals and it will, with the younger people, do much to enable them to make their contributions, with the use of the present drugs and the use of the regular supervision which they can have at the day centres.
I hope that the Minister will be able to educate employers about epileptics. The new drugs have made epilepsy, for a very large number of sufferers, something which can be controlled. One of the saddest things is that when they have been controlled and been released, they have the greatest difficulty in getting a job, and immediately they are thrown back on themselves. Immediately they are inhibited that they are not like other people, they get depressed again, and within a few weeks or months they are back in hospital from the sheer frustration of being unable to get a job.
On the Bexley side of my constituency there is a very active association, and at its first meeting, which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr.

Hamling) and myself attended, there was a surprisingly large turn out of about 150 people. They were all interested and anxious to help with epileptics, that being their particular speciality, all the parents there being parents of epileptic adolescents and younger children.
I support all that my right hon. Friend is doing. I am sure that he is right to get as many as possible to maintain contact with the hospitals. We should never forget that all too large a percentage of those who enter mental hospitals are forgotten, abandoned, or their families emigrate, and many of them never have the personal family contact so lavishly given to somebody in and out of general hospital in 12 days and whose place looks like Moyses Stevens during that period.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on introducing the Motion. But I make no apology for introducing a certain note of dissent and critical assessment since I believe that there are a number of inconsistencies and examples of lack of clarity in the White Paper which should be brought out.
It is remarkable that a White Paper in which the Government, having teetered on the edge of radicalism—now having come down firmly on the side of comprmise—should contain within the interstices of that White Paper a full and effective rebuttal of its own conservatism. But that is exactly how it is.
The crux of the debate, which is contained in paragraphs 190–1, is whether the hospital is the proper form of care for those who are not ill but whose intelligence is limited. Table 1 demonstrates very clearly that the great majority of people at present in subnormality hospitals do not have behaviour difficulties requiring constant medical supervision, do not need assistance in washing, dressing or bathing, are not room-bound, are not severely incontinent, and do not even have any physical handicap. This means that the services required by the mentally handicapped are basically social, occupational and educational.
Apart from the very handicapped people who are also mentally or physically ill and who might be cared for in units or annexes of general hospitals, specialist


hospitals for the mentally handicapped should be phased out. That is the clear implication. It is not a question of years, whether it be 15 or more, but the principle of the commitment. It also means that priorities should be decisively given to the development of community services over hospital services. All that the White Paper proposes, in its very interesting and extremely informative Table 5, is that the numbers of mentally handicapped cared for by hospital boards should be roughly halved while there is to be a corresponding increase in the number of local authority places to be substituted.
Most of the proposed rise in revenue and capital expenditure for the next few years is apparently intended for the hospitals, with money being spent on improving old hospitals, at least for a certain period, or, I regret to say, in erecting new smaller hospitals. Yet a 20-year period is being laid down for this process, even though local authorities are being asked to provide only an extra 55 places per 100,000 of the population, and even though the White Paper at paragraph 210, expects some areas to reach their target in only 10 years. But, if this is not faint-hearted enough, paragraph 210 caps the pusillanimity of the Government's plans with this sentence :
So far as the resources available for capital projects allow, the Government will try to help authorities to complete their programmes within the time-span they set themselves …
In other words, even by 1991, this far-from-radical set of polices may well not be complete.
Not only does the White Paper go only half way—and it does not get there fast also, because its central principles are confused and, perhaps, merely reflect a thinly disguised papering over of divergent Departmental views, it is unclear and inconsistent in its crucial exposition of the ostensibly complementary local authority and hospital rôles. One still wonders, after reading the White Paper, precisely what the rôle of the hospitals is to be. Paragraph 174 says that they should be used for treatment, though not for residential care. But paragraph 176 adds that they will not normally deal with physical or mental illness because general or psychiatric hospitals provide the necessary services. Paragraph 138 rightly asserts that the

assessment can be carried out as adequately in training schools, health centres, schools or residential homes as in a specialist hospital.
The White Paper's very ambivalent answer to the question of the rôle of hospitals is at paragraph 191:
It is argued that only a hospital which brings together the mentally handicapped from a wide area can be large enough to classify patients with varying degrees or types of handicap, separate them in different wards and villas and provide the right tempo of life for each. It is also suggested that this type of hospital is necessary in order to allow staff to specialise in the care of the mentally handicapped and promote research into their problems and treatment.
But since there are to be exactly the same principles for care in local authority and in hospital services, this argument is easily refuted. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that the services in no section of society should be organised specially to fit in with the research needs which are made upon them.
As I have said, it is remarkable that the White Paper should fail in its policy recommendations to follow through the logic of its own observations. It notes with a telling accuracy in paragraph 97:
It is extremely hard, though creditable attempts have been made, to create a homely atmosphere in a barrack-like institutional building; or to care for severely handicapped, incontinent patients in multi-storey buildings without lifts, or with lavatories on one floor and the rooms used during the day on another.
In that case if, on the Government's own admission, existing hospitals often defeat the principles of domestic simulation and community involvement, why is there no commitment in the White Paper for ending these unsuitable hospitals within a definite time-span?
In fact, although the Government indicate that the hospital population might be expected to reduce to 56 per cent. of its present size, the position is complicated by two factors. One is the recommendation to provide new units of up to 200 beds. Paragraph 245 states that
200 in-patient beds would eventually be necessary only for a population well in excess of 250,000; a hospital serving more people than this would be too remote from many of them.
Quite so. As the ever-useful Table 5 indicates that 68 in-patient hospital beds are required per 100,000 total population,


a hospital with 170 places on one site would therefore serve a population of 250,000. Hence one might expect that all hospitals with an excess over 170 places would be expected to be phased out within a definite period of time, but the relevant recommendation of paragraph 241 that hospitals with 500 places or more should not be enlarged certainly appears anomalous, to say the least. As 36 hospitals, each of them with more than 500 patients, account for 64 per cent. of the total subnormality hospital population, this is an issue of lack of clarity which is of fundamental importance.
The second complication is the vagueness of the local authority commitment to residential care. Will the new homes of 25 persons per home resemble private housing in urban localities or will they be a pale copy of the larger Victorian institutions at present run by the hospital boards with or without a cordon sanitaire of isolation? This is a crucial question and one on which the White Paper, is, unhappily, entirely silent.
Nobody can fail to welcome the White Paper as a step in the right direction, but it is a faint and faltering step, two steps forward for every one step back. In view of the ground swell of reform, and in view of the mounting expectation over what I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree was a rather longish gestation period, it is a disappointingly timid offspring with more than a tinge of the Janus complex of two heads pointing in opposite directions.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This is a most timely and deeply important debate. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman). He has done a great service in allowing us to debate what right hon. and hon. Members on both sides regard as one of the main challenges facing us in the whole field of the social services.
There have been many outstanding speeches from both sides. We on this side believe that we may even have helped the right hon. Gentleman in his battle with the Treasury Ministers. While he has had some success in his exchanges with them so far, this debate may serve to fortify him in the further discussions there

must be for a much greater allocation of resources to help those who are mentally handicapped and mentally ill.
I am reminded of a speech made on the last occasion when the House discussed mental hospitals. It was a debate in February, 1970, in which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) referred to the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill as the Cinderellas of the National Health Service. In that debate the hon. Member for Farnham said there had been so little dissension because the House had avoided the one topic on which differences arise most easily, that of funds and resources. The hon. Gentleman then used these words :
… we in this House are fooling ourselves … if we seriously believe that we can deal with these problems … by any other method but by finding a way of getting more money for people to spend on the Health Service in general and the care of the mentally sick and abnormal in particular."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 1393–4.]
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The hon. Member for Farnham is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I greatly hope that the Secretary of State will remind the hon. Member of the great wisdom of the approach he adopted in the debate of 11th February, 1970, and that this debate will serve to strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's hand in seeking from the Treasury more resources to help those who are mentally handicapped and mentally ill.
What we are debating is a shameful and unreasonable gap in our social scheme. The Mind Manifesto of the National Association for Mental Health, with the support of many other organisations, has reminded all of us of the size of the problem. I quote from The Times of 25th February, 1971 :
Yet the size of the problem may be even greater than the formidable statistics compiled earlier this year by the N.A.M.H. What complex human misery lies behind the figure that at least 6,000 young people between the ages of 10 and 20 enter hospitals for the mentally ill each year? Or that 22,000 mentally confused people over 65 are taken every year from their homes and cared for in hospital? It is estimated that several million people in this country take tranquillising or anti-depressant drugs regularly to relieve mental or emotional strain. Millions take drugs to help them sleep.
Each year 4,500 people kill themselves and 14,000 make an unsuccessful attempt at suicide.


Over 72,000 children of school age are emotionally disturbed and attend child guidance clinics, special schools or psychiatric hospitals. About one-third of the estimated 30,000 tramps in Britain are mentally ill. There are probably about three million people whose lives are shadowed by mental disorder. In 1967–68, over 30 million working days were lost because of mental illness and the sickness benefit cost nearly £30 million.
We ought to reflect on the problems created by the bigger and bigger organisations in which most people now have to live and work. They are often extremely impersonal and soulless organisations. It is perhaps not surprising that so many personality defects should manifest themselves in organisations that are themselves so impersonal and soulless.
Like all of my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate, I am deeply grateful to the Rt. Hon. David Ennals, whose great energies have been enlisted in the service of those whose problems we are debating, for the way in which he has delineated the size of our task. It is the wish of all of us that David will return to the House at a very early date.
He has done for the mentally handicapped and mentally sick what Oxfam has done for the very poor and Shelter for the homeless. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree with me that the former Minister of Slate has done great service in this field.
Big hospitals, like other big organisations, can also be very soulless. Of one such hospital—one of the biggest psychiatric hospitals in the country—it was reported in The Times of 30th June this year that its inmates were
waiting to die in neat straight rows.
Quoting from an official report, The Times said that
In the unreconstructed wards, patients mill around in a kind of primeval gloom. Beds are jammed tightly together like pack ice with narrow passages running between them. In the lounges, patients sit cheek by jowl. Others shuffle about aimlessly among a nightmarish clutter of limbs and geriatric chairs.".
This sounds like a report, not from a hospital, but from an anti-hospital
The battle against such conditions as those reported in The Times is a grim struggle with squalor. The recent New Stateman series by Donald Gould and Ann Shearer shed a great deal of light on living conditions—I should perhaps

have said the conditions of existence—in many of our subnormality hospitals. Their series of articles should be made compulsory reading for everyone with responsibility in any part of this field. They say in their recent concluding article that most of the huge institutions are much of an age, that is, about a century old. They say that before the onset of industrialism
… was a good time for mental invalids. A system we tend to think we have just invented—community care—was working well.".
Then came the asylums, with their high walls and sombre interiors. But if Victorian England was a harsh and inhuman place for mental invalids, at least our ancestors had the excuse of ignorance. Paragraph 43 of the White Paper states :
Less was known then than now about the extent to which the mentally handicapped may respond to the stimulus of education, training and social activity".
There is no longer any excuse for preventable suffering. We can now so easily improve the conditions of those who lie behind the walls of these ancient institutions. All of us must see to it that the Secretary of State is supported in any and every attempt to end the squalor of many of our so-called mental hospitals.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are those who passionately believe that the existing sub-normality hospitals are not the answer to the problem of mental invalidity. The Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped wants these hospitals to be phased out within 15 years and to be replaced with a system of community-based residential units. Ann Shearer, Sandra Francklin and Pat Taylor, who have distinguished themselves by their work in this field, believe that this can be done without any increase in the totality of expenditure. The Secretary of State recently had a meeting with representatives of the Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped. I hope that he will keep in the closest possible touch with the Campaign, because it has a very important viewpoint to which he should pay careful attention.
As he knows, there are some other very strong critics of his White Paper. I agree with Peter Townsend that as we replace the existing sub-normality hospitals we do not want a system of minor isolated barracks put up by local authorities in pale imitation of the larger Victorian barracks which are at present run


by the hospital authorities. Professor Townsend has said :
Yet the White Paper makes this an all-too-likely possibility".
In the Sunday Times of 27th June, 1971, he also said :
The Government has taken a whole year to ruminate over its predecessor's unpublished proposals and the decisions that have been eventually reached are tragically disappointing in nature and scale. The Government proposes a reduction of hospital numbers and a shift to a more balanced division of services between community care and hospitals; but does so in a half-hearted and confused fashion which may result in a pattern of services little better than they are now".
I am sure that in his reply the Secretary of State will want to address himself to those criticisms.
I wish also to refer to a letter which I have received from Miss Mary Applebey, General Secretary of the National Association for Mental Health, who has made some very important points to me which should be considered by the Secretary of State in this debate. She says :
I see no reason to suppose that the local authorities will now allocate more of their scarce resources to meet the targets which the Government now sets unless there is a statutory obligation placed upon them to provide services to the standard required".
She goes on to say :
The role of the hospitals in the future is insufficiently defined
The White Paper is rather defensive on this point. Paragraph 192, having discussed the conflicting viewpoints about the future of mental hospitals, says:
The Government considers it premature to form a final view on these questions".
Many of us feel that the time is long overdue for reaching conclusions on this matter.

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raisonrose—

Mr. Morris: I must be brief, because I have given an undertaking to give the Secretary of State sufficient time to answer the points raised in the debate.
Another very important point made by Miss Mary Applebey is that
The junior training centres which have now become part of the Education Service have over the past 20 years developed from nothing to a first class service, well housed and with a professional training for teachers. Similar provision for adults lags far behind and hostel

provision is practically non-existent. This is where the pressure has to be put on and unless there is urgency in the Government's plans for adults, the hospitals will continue to be choked by patients who ought not to be in hospital at all
I have also been asked to emphasise again to the House and the country that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, affects the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill just as much as it affects the physically handi-happed. Miss Applebey has put it to me that the more this can be rubbed in the better. We do, however, accept that there is no point in attacking local authorities unless we ensure that they have the resources to do what we want them to do.
I have only one other point to raise with the Secretary of State. It concerns the Education (Handicapped Children) Act, 1970. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science pointed out that the Financial Memorandum which was considered on 13th July, 1970,
has no relevance … to any future increased expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1319.]
The reference there was to future increased expenditure under the provisions of that Act. I should like to be certain that the local education authorities, whose responsibilities are much increased by that Act, will themselves not be short of the resources to implement it properly.
What we all want, on both sides of the House, is that those who are mentally handicapped and mentally ill should at least be allowed to live in circumstances of decency and dignity.

6.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): Like all other hon. Members, I pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) for choosing this subject and for opening the debate in such a wide-ranging and constructive speech. His choice has been vindicated. If I may say so, I do not remember a debate containing more excellent speeches. I do not believe that a debate of this sort on this subject would have been possible 10 years ago. It might conceivably have been possible five years ago.
Although I shall refer to the main points made by all hon. Members who


have taken part, I wish to pick out, in particular, if I may, the speeches of the right hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for their combination of factual knowledge and deep feeling.
There is no doubt that the occasional scandal does an enormous amount for a social service. The Mental Health Act, 1959, carried through proudly, and rightly so, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), which followed a Royal Commission, laid out the framework of what the country needed to do for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. I recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) was in the Ministry just before that Act was passed. But the resources just did not become available in ample enough supply during the 1960s to make a very great difference.
There has been a difference for the mentally ill, thanks to the chemo-therapeutic revolution. There has begun to be a difference for mentally handicapped children, thanks to local authority expenditure on junior training centres. But there has not been enough change, and that is why we who are interested are now impatient to get on with the job. It was the series of incidents in the late 1960s which gave my predecessor an opportunity to begin a new impetus in care for the mentally handicapped, an impetus which I am glad to have the opportunity to acelerate.
I wish to pay tribute to four groups. First, I join with all those who have paid a tribute to the parents and families who cope, often under incredible strain, with mentally handicapped relatives. Second, I pay a tribute to the voluntary societies, which have pioneered a more humane attitude to the mentally handicapped. Third—I know that the whole House will endorse it—I pay a tribute to those astonishing people, the nurses. Occasionally, those of us who go to these hospitals—I expect that I am by no means the only one to have done it—will say to a nurse, "I am so glad that you choose to do this work. Why do you do it?", only to receive the answer, "I would not do anything else". It is a miracle of nature

for which one thanks God. Of course, there are criticisms. When one comes to analyse the pressures under which these nurses have to work, it is not surprising that there are episodes of which all concerned, and particularly the nursing profession, are ashamed. But, in general, the country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the nurses who care for the mentally handicapped.
The fourth tribute I pay is to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a fortunate Minister, and, I believe, a rare one in my office, who has as his right hon. Friend at the Exchequer someone who has previously been Minister of Health. My right hon. Friend has made available more resources for the Cinderella sectors of the Health Service, and because of that extra money it has been possible for the White Paper to be published and to offer more resources than some people feared would be available.
Undoubtedly there is a changing attitude in the country, and the changing attitude in the country coincides with a changing prospect for the mentally handicapped themselves. Over the years, doctors, teachers and research workers have uncovered a latent potentiality in most handicapped people, though not in all, which responds to training and to loving care. It is now agreed, I think, that, given individual and loving care, almost all mentally handicapped children and adults—not all, but nearly all, can develop to a greater or lesser extent.
I remember the startling impression which I had when I first came to my present job on reading an anecdote in one of the books published by, I think, Dr. and Mrs. Clarke about two girls, both with the same I.Q. when they started and both with loving parents. One of them lived all day and night in bed, nursed by her parents, and the other, of the same age and starting with the same I.Q., kept house for her parents. In the second case, the child had been stretched by the loving care of her parents instead of merely being cherished and cared for.
There is, therefore, a prospect for many of the mentally handicapped, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West emphasised, most of them are loving and loved. Most of them are capable of giving and arousing affection. But, of course, as other hon. Members


have emphasised—I shall come to the points which they made—there are some mentally handicapped who are very disturbed, withdrawn or intractable and a few who are violent.
I have been asked to report on the position regarding autism. I fear that I have nothing new to say. There have been a number of debates on the subject recently, one answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). It is a subject which spans my Department and the Department of Education and Science. There is a lot of work going on. No breakthrough has been achieved, and I should be wrong to suggest that any progress has been made which should be reported since the last debate only a few months ago.

Mr. Alfred Morris: And the dyslectic child? There has been a great deal of work done, has there not?

Sir K. Joseph: Research is going on, but I have no change to report.
Against these more promising features, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was right to remind us, there is a greater number of frail mentally handicapped children whose lives are being preserved. The capacity of doctors to preserve life is increasing the number of severely mentally handicapped who may live often for decades. I for one very much welcome the growth of discussion among doctors about where their ethical duty lies, a discussion which was focused by the broadcast by Dr. Henry Miller to which my hon. Friend referred.
The first matter which, I think, I should pick out of the mass of interconnected subjects with which we are dealing is, perhaps, the most important of all for the future, that is, the question of prevention. The House will have noticed that we have an appendix in the White Paper on prevention and early detection. There is no dramatic break-through at hand. There is a possibility, which is being deeply studied at the instigation of the M.R.C., of identifying Down's syndrome among older mothers early enough to offer them abortion where mental handicap is diagnosed. It may be that this could be a practical possibility within a few years. The House will know that mongolism, Down's syn-

drome, is a cause of a substantial proportion of severe mental handicap.
The White Paper does not seek to conceal the bad conditions of our services for the mentally handicapped. We have all paid tribute to the burden lovingly borne by the families at home, where most of the severely mentally-handicapped children are, as are nearly half the severely mentally-handicapped adults. But often the families go on bearing the burden long past the tolerable point and cannot pass it on to a suitable caring institution when the time comes. I am glad to say that the kind of case identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) is comparatively rare. As we decongest the hospitals by the growth of community services there will be places for those who become too great a burden for their families. It will not happen overnight, but I hope that such cases will become rarer and rarer until none is recorded.
In the hospitals, to borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, patients are herded together. I will add a word to his phrase by saying that they are herded in conditions which are barbaric both for them and for those who have to care for them. We must try to understand the pressures upon the nurses in over-crowded, old-fashioned wards with minimum domestic staff, where because of the growth of local authority services patients tend to be far more severely subnormal than they were 10, 20 and 30 years ago.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East asked me two questions. The letter of advice following the Farleigh Report has gone out from my Ministry to all hospital management committees concerned. The guidelines which the National Association for Mental Health initiated for the care of potentially violent patients are being discussed by the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists preparatory to something appropriately professional being sent out.
Added to the burdens of which we are all aware, the hospitals for mentally handicapped tend to be very isolated physically, so that there is a danger of the patients quickly becoming cut off from their families, and the difficulty in recruiting staff, both professional and domestic, is made the greater.
In the local authority world, although there has been not nearly enough growth of homes—the homes recommended by the Mental Health Act—we should pay tribute to the remarkable surge of provision of junior training centres, what are now called special schools. Local authorities did remarkably well during the 1960s. About 10,000 extra places for mentally-handicapped children have been provided. But the local authorities have not begun yet to provide equivalent provision for the adults.
Against that background, the objective of the country is common ground. There should be a first-class service for the detection and assessment of mental handicap; a full range of services to support, educate and train the mentally-handicapped, wherever they are living; residential accommodation of a homely kind for those who cannot stay in their own homes; and hospitals for those who need services which only a hospital can be expected to provide. Towards the achieving of those objectives a considerable amount of research is in hand and will be needed. There is a report in Chapter 8 of the White Paper on research in progress.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Woolwich, East who emphasised the important part that incontinence plays in the life of the mentally handicapped. Yet we know that, given enough attention to habit training, the mentally handicapped need not generally suffer from incontinence. Of course, there are cases where physical disabilities are associated with mental handicap. The methods of communicating with and training the mentally handicapped are still in their infancy. An important group of research studies connected with special educational and treatment methods is reported on page 65.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) asked me about research into the influence of lead in creating mental handicap. Research into the subject is going on at the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street. I have not had an application from Aston University, but obviously any application will be studied on its merts.
I come to what we want to see provided. First, for the majority of the mentally-handicapped, living in their own homes, there must be much better sup-

port—more home helps, more social workers, better laundry facilities, more holiday or emergency relief, and, above all, alternatives available if the strain is too severe. The whole House will agree about that. I am sure that under the impetus of their new social service committees, local authorities will be embarking enthusiastically upon strengthening such services. We all agree, too, that in the community there should be homely homes, not called hostels, homes with ordinary homely addresses, of a homely size—20 or 25 at the maximum. I would prefer to see them even smaller for children, anyway. The hon. Member for Ladywood made a number of good points in connection with local authority provision, but I do not have time to go into them individually.
In the hospitals, we want to give the doctors, the nurses and all the other professions concerned a chance to do what they could do if they were not coping with such desperate overcrowding. We want to enable them to assess and reassess, to train, to provide day services and out-patient services. We want them to have a catchment area, to decongest, to improve. There may well have to be smaller units, perhaps much smaller units of the Kushlik, Wessex type in the community, associated with district general hospitals where those professional services can be provided.
That combination of support in the home, community services and hospital services will all depend upon educational provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for Ladywood both made a number of valid points that are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. All those services depend upon sheltered employment and training, in the hospitals, through industrial therapy, training schemes or in special schools. All depend upon multi-disciplinary assessment, reassessment and advice. I particularly emphasise my agreement with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) who stressed the importance of multi-disciplinary advice being available through one door for the bewildered family. That is an objective at the heart of the White Paper, but it cannot be achieved overnight, as he knows.
Serving all those different places where the mentally-handicapped will be there must be the volunteer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst emphasised. No community can afford the money to provide all those services by the paid method alone. To support the family and the paid worker there must be the enthusiastic volunteer. Thank God there is a surge of volunteers coming forward.
That is a very tidy picture, but it does not correspond with reality. People are in the wrong place. People who should be in hospital are at home, and people who should be in homes are in hospitals. We have somehow to sort out the misplacements and stop more occurring. Therefore there is at the heart of the White Paper the simple principle of a stop—that is, the local, regional and, one day, the national stop. As a result of the discussions that will be taking place on the initiative of the regional hospital boards later this year, each area and region will assess the date by which local provision should be enough to enable hospitals no longer to accept cases that do not need hospital treatment. That date may be fairly soon—within two or three years in some areas where the local authority provision has already begun to approximate to what is needed. In other regions it will be more remote.
I hope—I shall come to what I shall do in connection with local authorities—that we may reach that stop before too long. As we begin to decongest the hospitals, the virtuous cycle to which hon Members have referred will begin. The less-crowded hospital will have a higher staff ratio per patient, the staff will be able to begin to train patients, more patients will become suitable for discharge to local authority homes and this, again, will improve the staff-patient ratio.
Against this background, what is the area of disagreement? The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made, I thought, an unnecessarily strident speech. There is an area of disagreement here. Some doctors would like us to place more emphasis on hospitals where, they say, they can guarantee—once we end the crowding and provide the money—loving, graded, sheltered care and training and a happy life for their patients. There are others

who say that the hospital will have no purpose to play in 15 years' time.
We do not, however, have to make this decision now. There is so much that we have to do before that date can possibly come. The local authority provision is nowhere near enough yet. We have years of slog to get local authority homes in sufficient quantity to absorb those occupants of hospitals who, everyone agrees, should not be there. The time may come when these isolated hospitals will find it hard to play a purpose.

Mr. Meacher: Mr. Meacherrose—

Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I am not disagreeing with the desire of the hon. Member to make as great a success as possible of community care, but we do not have to take this dreadful decision now whether the mental hospitals will survive after 15 years. We have to make life tolerable in them now. The hon. Member would agree upon that. The staff and the inmates cannot be left, while local authority provision is building up, to continue in these barbarous conditions of today. We have to look after the morale of the menial hospital staffs. In future, hospitals may need to be much smaller and much more local, but meanwhile we have a great amount to do that all agree should be done.
The White Paper tries to set out the whole spectrum of overlapping considerations. I inherited a draft from my predecessor. I have acknowledged my debt to him. Local authorities now know their targets; hospitals know the prospect ahead of them. This I can guarantee : that within a few years' time, there will be no mental handicap hospitals, such as there are today, so overcrowded, so ill-founded and so inadequately staffed.
I must, however, report to the House that there is a big job to be done in improving the management in the hospitals for the mentally handicapped. I have already paid tribute to my predecessor for initiating and creating the Hospital Advisory Service. I would like once again to pay public tribute to Dr. Baker and his teams, who are doing an astonishing job of friendly analysis and advice in the mental handicap, mental illness and geriatric hospitals.
A new generation of consultants is growing up. These doctors will replace


the traditional—and often worthy and respected—rôle of the medical superintendent by working closely with their senior nursing and administrative colleagues as members of a multi-disciplinary team. These doctors are increasing the services of the hospitals by providing for day patients, running out-patient clinics and joining paediatricians in assessing handicapped children. It is, however, exasperating that even with existing resources in existing hospitals, some teams do so much more for patients than others. The question of multi-disciplinary management can transform life for the patients in these hospitals.
We have provided more money—never enough, but more. About half is going to the hospital service and about half through the rate support grant to local authorities. The House will have noticed that on page 42 of the White Paper there is a table of the gap which has to be filled in adult training centres and, above all, the childrens' and adults' homes. I am glad to say that even before the White Paper was published, local authorities had bid to me enough adult training centre provision to fill over one-quarter of the gap over the next four years and a substantial proportion—about the same—of the gap for adults' homes and children's homes.
I hope that as a result of the White Paper and what will follow it, local authorities will increase their bids. There are many competing pressures upon them, but they are enjoying a 12 per cent. increase in real terms this year over last year and will have a further 12 per cent. increase in real terms next year over this year in the rate support grant for health and welfare services.
It is my intention to ask the regional hospital boards to initiate this autumn talks with local authorities to discuss local plans for providing homes, training centres, day centres and supporting services. It is my intention—this has already been announced—early next year to invite local authorities to prepare, preparatory to submission to the Government for publication, a 10-year programme for all health and welfare services. As a result of the regional hospital board area discussions which will start at the end of the year, and of the pressure that, I

promise, I shall bring to bear by persuasion on local authorities, I hope that we can improve upon the figures I have already given.
It will take five years to make a real difference to the present position but I believe that in 10 years' time the position for the mentally handicapped and their families will have been transformed. I believe that in 15 years' time we shall nearly have finished the job of making this country a civilised place for the family of a mentally-handicapped child. No one thinks that it can be solved by a wave of a magic wand. We have decades and generations of relative neglect to repair, but the Government are determined to achieve and maintain a momentum.
I conclude by thanking again my hon. Friend for initiating what has been a most constructive debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the recent White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, with the renewed emphasis on community care, the policy of providing community instead of hospital care for the mentally handicapped who do not need hospital treatment, and the additional £40 million made available by the present Government for accelerating over the next four years the increase and improvement of community services for the mentally handicapped and the improvement of conditions in the hospitals for the mentally handicapped.

REGIONAL HOSPITAL BOARDS (PUBLIC RELATIONS)

The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper :
That this House urges upon regional hospital boards the importance of keeping the public fully informed of developments in the hospital services, especially in view of the impending reorganisation of the National Health Service; and further urges each regional hospital board to give the public it serves an account of the progress made in implementing Command Paper No. 3000, Revision of the Hospital Plan for England and Wales.

Mr. Michael Cocks: In view of the time, Mr. Speaker, I shall be very short and merely give notice to the Minister that I shall communicate with him in order to draw his attention to the matters which I consider to be of public interest.

Orders of the Day — DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER PRIVILEGES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members will, I am sure, have noted that the Bill is similar to a Bill which had its Second Reading in Committee in May, 1970, but which was overtaken by the dissolution of Parliament. I think that hon. Members will agree that it is a Bill of comparatively minor scope. Its four Clauses are concerned with the privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions, international organisations and Commonwealth representatives and therefore hon. Members will no doubt have examined them with care, but they will have observed that the Bill will not introduce any changes in practice or policy of major significance.

Clause 1 is intended to put on a statutory basis certain financial reliefs which are already given administratively. It provides for the refund of the customs duty element in the price of hydrocarbon oil, which in effect means petrol and oil for heating, bought by diplomatic missions and certain persons connected with them and by the Commonwealth Secretariat. If hydrocarbon oil were imported directly by such persons for their own use, exemption from customs duty would be accorded under the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, and the Commonwealth Secretariat Act, 1966. But as this is not practicable refunds have to be made instead.

At present, these refunds are made under the authority of the Appropriation Acts alone, but it is an accepted principle that specific statutory authority should be obtained for recurrent payments of this kind. Such authority has already been obtained for refunds to be made to entitled persons connected with consulates or international organisations by the Consular Relations Act, 1968, and the International Organisations Act, 1968.

Clause 1 will amend the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, and the Commonwealth Secretariat Act, 1966, to bring them into line in this respect with the Consular Relations Act, 1968, and the International Organisations Act, 1968.

Up to now, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made all these refunds. On this Clause becoming law, we intend to transfer the administration of the refunds to the Department of Customs and Excise so that they will no longer be made out of voted money but will come from revenue instead. As always where diplomatic privileges and immunities are concerned, reciprocity is at the heart of the matter. Our missions in other countries are in fact accorded the privilege of duty-free petrol with consequent overall financial savings to us. Clause 1(3) will allow us to withdraw the privilege from any country which fails to give reciprocity. We have never yet wished to do this, but as reciprocity is at the heart of the matter, it is appropriate to have the power.

Clause 2 will enable us to accord privileges and immunities to the Caribbean Development Bank, which was established early last year and all of whose present members are States and territories within the Commonwealth. Its object is to provide capital for economic development in the countries in the Caribbean region, and it is a project which Her Majesty's Government consider to be very worth while. We ratified the Agreement establishing the Caribbean Development Bank in January, 1970, subject to a reservation concerning privileges and immunities. This Agreement requires limited privileges and immunities to be conferred on the Bank, and as Section 1 of the International Organisations Act, 1968, applies only to organisations which have at least one "foreign" member, legislation by way of a Bill is required.

Clause 2 will amend Section 1 of the International Organisations Act to extend it to the Caribbean Development Bank. It will then be possible to make an Order in Council, subject to Affirmative Resolution of each House, to give full effect to the privileges and immunities provisions of the Agreement. This Clause will, of course, have no effect on the privileges and immunities enjoyed by other international organisations some of which are dealt with by individual


Orders under the 1968 Act or its predecessor.

Clause 3 will amend Section 2 of the International Organisations Act, 1968, to provide statutory authority for granting exemption from vehicle excise duty to the senior staff of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. As hon. Members know, I.M.C.O. is a United Nations specialised agency with its headquarters in London. Section 2 of the 1968 Act was intended to accord diplomatic financial privileges to those members of the staff of I.M.C.O. whose rank was comparable with that of a diplomatic agent.

However, Section 2 omitted to make provision for exemption from vehicle excise duty. There was an understanding between the Government and I.M.C.O. that this exemption would be accorded, and this has been done administratively up to now. The duty involved is about £800 a year. If the Clause becomes law, the Headquarters Agreement between the United Kingdom and I.M.C.O. will be amended to refer to vehicle excise duty, and a draft Order to give effect to the amendment will be laid before Parliament.

Clause 4 substitutes for Section 12 of the Consular Relations Act, 1968, the provisions set out in the Schedule to the Bill. These provisions will enable an Order in Council to be made which will confer on Commonwealth representatives performing functions of a consular nature, and on their staffs and families, privileges and immunities on the scale which is enjoyed by foreign consuls under the Consular Relations Act.

The intention of the original Section 12 of the Consular Relations Act, 1968, was to enable this to be done, but in a few minor matters powers are deficient, or there is some doubt about whether they are wide enough. For example, existing provisions do not cover clearly goods imported or hydrocarbon oil purchased for official use of a Commonwealth post nor do they cover members of their families and the private servants of members of their staffs. It is proposed to take the opportunity of the Bill to clarify the matter and this has been done in a way which will also make it possible to repeal the remaining part of the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952. No

change of policy is contained in Clause 4, but it is a useful piece of legislative tidying-up.

Legislation in diplomatic and international privileges and immunities may appear to be somewhat complex and it may be that a scale of immunities and privileges could be drawn up which would be acceptable in all cases. But, as is stated in the Preamble to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the purpose of such privileges and immunities is to enable the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions representing States. As the functions of the various persons and bodies enjoying these privileges vary considerably, the legislation required differs from case to case and this necessarily produces somewhat complex legislation.

I trust, however, that the House will recognise that the Bill is a reasonable piece of legislation which makes necessary amendments to our present law in this respect. It enables us either to ensure for our own posts abroad the privileges to which they are internationally entitled and which we wish them to have, or to redeem pledges given to international or commonwealth agencies of whose purposes we approve, and I hope that the House will be able to accord the Bill a Second Reading.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I thank the Under-Secretary for that clear explanation of the purpose of the Bill. As I understand it, it is substantially a tidying-up measure. As he said, provisions relating to diplomatic and consular immunities and privileges are necessarily founded on the principle of reciprocity and it is for that reason that one may have more tidying-up than would otherwise be desirable.
The major part of the Bill is to give statutory effect to that which up to now has been done by purely administrative action. Clause 1 gives statutory recognition to existing practice and that is to be welcomed, for it is always desirable that wherever possible rules of this kind should be on the Statute Book rather than apparently left to the discretion of the Executive.
The other provisions put right minor omissions in previous Statutes, gaps which


were left and which ought to be filled, and again they are to be welcomed. Clause 1(3) directs attention to the reciprocity principle, although I assume that even under the previous administrative procedure reciprocity was a principle to be effected, although that issue rarely if ever arose.
The Opposition had some share in the genesis of this legislation. We welcome it, and hope that it will have a speedy Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.11 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill repeals a number of Statures which are no longer of any practical utility. They are set out in the Schedule. This is part of the process of reviewing the Statute law which is designed to ensure that the Statute Book is not cluttered up with provisions which no longer serve any purpose beyond confusing members of the public and their advisers. I gladly pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who now sit opposite for designating a system whereby the Statute Book can be slimmed and there can be cut and excised from it various provisions which are completely spent.
The Statutes which are recommended for repeal in the Bill have been studied by the Law Commission after consultation with various bodies. The ecclesiastical Statutes have been considered by a committee appointed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York. The banking Statutes have been studied by committees of the London Clearing Banks, the Scottish Bank's general managers and the Bankers' Association of Northern Ireland

There is in Part I of the Schedule the repeal of enactments relating to Irish peers, which is based on the decision of the Committee of Privileges in the Earl of Antrim's Petition, and the advice which was given there by three of the Law Lords was that the right to elect Irish representative peers no longer exists.
It may be that some hon. Members will feel sad at the demise of ancient Statutes, but it is obviously sensible that there should be cut from the Statute Book, with which advisers to citizens have to work, those Statutes which are spent. It is for that reason that the Bill is presented to the House, on the advice of the Law Commission, having been studied by the Joint Committee.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I welcome the Bill, which is the product of the work of the Law Commission. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to my noble Friend Lord Gardiner and others whose work enabled the Law Commission to apply itself to matters of this kind in addition to the more major problems to which it addressed itself. It is clearly of value that a great deal of material which is no longer of any use should be cleared off the Statute Book, and a large step forward has been taken in that direction in the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Irish peerage, which has caused a great deal of dissension in recent years. As I understand it, a Select Committee of the other House found quite clearly that the right of representative Irish peers to take their seats in the other place had gone. In those circumstances, the Bill gives statutory effect to that, and I agree that it is right that that should be so.
There are some interesting features amongst the legislation that is repealed. I draw special attention to the provision in Part IV of the Schedule which repeals Mr. Speaker's Retirement Act, 1895. Perhaps I might advise you, Mr. Speaker, that that does not mean that no Speaker will be allowed to retire in future. It applies only to one of your predecessors, the legislation now being spent.
Parts VI and VII are of some interest. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to give consideration to this


point. They cover the various Expiring Laws Continuance Acts year by year from 1962 to 1968 in Part VI and, in Part VII, the Consolidated Fund Acts and Appropriation Acts between 1963 and 1969. As I understand it, once the year in question has expired, the Act is spent. For that reason, we are now repealing a number of these wholesale.
It occurs to me to wonder whether, rather than leaving it to a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, after a number of years it might not be possible to adopt the practice that succeeding Expiring Laws Continuance Bills or Consolidated Fund Bills automatically repealed those of their predecessors which by then had been spent, so saving having to deal with them in this way after a period of time. I do not know whether that is practicable. No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to consider that point for the future.
I hope that the other matter to which I wish to refer is not too much of a Committee point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might like to look at it. It is the wording used on page 13 in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954. It says :
In section 69(1), all the definitions other than such of the following as are in force at the passing of this Act, namely those of
—and then it sets out a number of them. I understand that the wording was suggested in the course of the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Consolidation and other Bills as being desirable to govern a situation which had arisen owing to uncertainty as to when the Mineral Workings Bill would reach the Statute Book. No doubt that was a good reason for using those words at the time, but the words themselves, taken without that explanation, are not easy to understand. One wonders whether someone looking at this collection of repeals in future years will be able easily to follow what is repealed and what is not repealed in Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954. If at this stage it is possible, by reason of events which have supervened, to adopt a rather more intelligible form of wording, it will be to the benefit of generations to come.
I support the Bill generally and welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LAND REGISTRATION AND LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 5

PROVISIONS AS TO FORM OF INDEX AND SEARCHES

7.20 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 37, leave out paragraph (a) and insert :
(a) by reason of any discrepancy between—

(i) the particulars which are shown in a certificate under this section as being the particulars in respect of which the search for entries was made, and
(ii) the particulars in respect of which a search for entries was required by the person who made the requisition; or,

It may be for the convenience of the House if I refer to the second of the two Amendments, which is in the same words and refers to Schedule 1.
In effect, these are drafting Amendments designed to clarify Clause 5(7) of the Bill. They arise from comments made with force and perspicacity by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) supported by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The hon. Gentleman drew attention to this matter in Committee. While accepting the intention and principle of the Clause, he indicated with some force that it did not make abundantly clear what should be the liability when there was an error by the computer. He pointed out that we should be able to see what the position was.
The Clause intended that there should be liability and responsibility which could be avoided, but not wherever an error is made in a search. The Amendments are designed to make the intention of the Clause abundantly clear. They seek to redefine the discrepancy between questions which are posed instead of between searches. I think that was the confusion


which then existed. This discrepancy is re-defined, first, as between
the particulars which are shown in a certificate under this section as being the particulars in respect of which the search for entries was made, and
(ii) the particulars in respect of which a search for entries was required by the person who made the requisition".
It will be up to the person who gets the information to check that the answer he sought has been given. If it is clear that another question has been answered, it is the responsibility of that person to see that that has happened and to seek the further question and get the answer thereto. It is to clarify this position that the Amendments have been moved.
Again, I thank the hon. Member for Kensington, North for having drawn the attention of the House to this matter. I hope that the proposal we have made will make the situation clearer and effect what he sought to have done.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for moving the Amendment. It will greatly improve and make clearer the intention of the Clause.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did me too much credit, in that the matter was initially raised in the Second Reading Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). There was undoubtedly a query as the Clause was drafted. This was, to a certain extent, less apparent to the layman than to the lawyer who tends to use the word "search" to mean both the question and the answer. The Amendment deals with the problem most satisfactorily, and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for presenting it.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I also thank the Attorney General for moving the Amendment. I know that the Government have thought deeply about this difficulty and come forward with one or two proposals which did not quite seem to meet it. However, the Amendment which has been moved should remove that difficulty.
It is important to make clear what the difficulty is and where it hits. I am not sure that the Attorney-General directed his opening remarks in the direction in which I am advised the difficulty lies. I

understand that the problem does not so much affect the person who puts the search into operation; it arises as a result of the provisions of Section 17(3) of the principal Act which is set out in the Schedule on page 12 of the Bill :
In favour of a purchaser or an intending purchaser, as against persons interested under or in respect of matters or documents whereof entries are required or allowed as aforesaid, the certificate, according to the tenor thereof, shall be conclusive, affirmatively or negatively, as the case may be.
I understand that the effect is that somebody who might not know that a search is being made may find that, as a result of some error made in the process of the search, his rights as a mortgagee are removed from the title. He was the person whom we were seeking to protect when we raised this matter in Second Reading Committee and in Standing Committee. I think that the Amendment protects him. The expression now used contemplates a situation where a search is made about one property and the computer prints out an answer relating to a totally different property. A person who had some charge on the property in respect of which the search was intended to be made would not be affected, because the result of the search would, on its face, relate to a totally different property. It seems, therefore, that the Amendment secures the result of protecting this innocent third party. That is the whole basis of what we were seeking to achieve.
In the circumstances, like my hon. Friend, I welcome the way in which the matter has been dealt with.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

PART VII OF THE LAND CHARGES ACT 1925, AS IT WILL HAVE EFFECT, SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS IN RELATION TO LOCAL LAND CHARGES AND AGRICULTURAL CHARGES CONTAINED IN SECTION 10 OF THIS ACT, WHEN ALL REPEALS AND AMENDMENTS MADE IN IT BY THIS ACT OPERATE

Amendment made : No. 2, in page 12, line 25, [Schedule 1], leave out paragraph (a) and insert :
(a) by reason of any discrepancy between—

(i) the particulars which are shown in a certificate under this section as being the


particulars in respect of which the search for entries was made, and
(ii) the particulars in respect of which a search for entries was required by the person who made the requisition; or.—[The Attorney-General.]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Committee No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3

RESTRICTION OF LIABILITY FOR OIL POLLUTION

7.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 1, after ' owner ', insert :
' nor any person performing salvage operations with the agreement of the owner '.

Clause 3(h) follows the 1969 Convention and provides that a servant or agent of a tanker owner who may be liable under Clause 1 shall not be liable for oil pollution damage. The reason for this is that the Convention and the Bill impose a special liability on the owner and contain special provision for insuring and enforcing that liability. Provision is also made in paragraph (a) that the owner should not be liable in any other way for oil pollution damage. If proceedings were possible against the owner's servants or agents, behind whom an owner would normally have to stand, a way would be open indirectly to further proceedings against an owner. A salvor who carries out salvage operations with the agreement of the owner is in much the same position as a servant or agent of the owner although, as an independent contractor, in law he might not come

within the meaning of the phrase, and consequently it seems to us equitable, particularly having regard to the considerations to which I shall come in a moment, to put a salvor legally on the same footing as the owner's servant or agent for the purposes of the Clause.

The risk of unlimited liability for pollution damage and difficulties in obtaining insurance cover are causing salvors to hesitate before undertaking salvage operations to tankers. Not long ago there was the incident of the "Panther", and I am informed that one reason for the delay in getting on with the salvage was the discussion over indemnity from the owners.

As hon. Members know, the maximum figures for shipowners' liability for oil pollution contained in the 1969 Civil Liability Convention, and reflected in the Bill, represent the maximum available insurance cover. We have been told that salvors are consequently finding it impossible to obtain cover in the insurance market for their potential oil pollution liability when assisting tankers because if an oil spill results liability could attach both to the tanker and to the salvor. The insurance market is not prepared to put itself at double risk, and therefore excludes oil pollution liability from the salvors' cover. This leads salvors to seek to cover themselves by means of a full indemnity from the tanker—which in effect means from the tanker's insurers—but this is likely to be refused since the insurers are not prepared, in this way, to increase their cover for oil pollution damage.

The general objective of the Bill is to ensure that adequate compensation is available to those who suffer damage from oil pollution. Important as that objective is, however, I am sure the House will agree that it is even more important, where possible, to prevent the damage from being caused in the first place, and one major way in which that can be achieved is by prompt action to salvage a damaged tanker and to minimise any escape of oil. Marine salvage is, of course, a service provided voluntarily by those who are equipped to do so, on the basis that they can expect high rewards if they are successful, but will get nothing if they fail.

The situation that I have outlined could mean that at best valuable time could be


lost in starting salvage operations because of arguments about liability, and at worst that the salvage of a damaged tanker would not be undertaken at all. The Amendment gives a salvor protection if, but only if, he is carrying out salvage operations with the agreement of the owner, since it is only in such circumstances that he can be regarded as in an analogous position to the owner's servant or agent.

We think that the Amendment is not unreasonable in itself, and will help to remove hesitations, which have occurred, on the part of salvors. This is done in the wider interests of facilitating prompt action by salvors and is, in any event, as I have explained, in accordance with the general principles behind the Clause. For those reasons I invite the House to agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Roy Mason: This seems to be a sensible Amendment, and one with which we agree, but one question arises from the hon. Gentleman's short speech. He knows that in recent months the Government have decided unilaterally to change the law so as to be able, if necessary, to take steps to stop pollution, or further pollution, by an oil tanker which has been stranded, or been in collision, beyond our territorial limits.
The hon. Gentleman said that in order to safeguard salvors the salvage would be done with the agreement of the owner. What will happen if there is a stranding, or a collision, involving a tanker beyond our territorial limits, and the Government in their wisdom, fearing a major pollution threat—and I think that I am quoting the previous Act correctly—decide, before the owner concurs, to initiate action to stop pollution, or further pollution, which necessitates salvors going beyond our territorial limits and taking action to stop further pollution? Will they be able to take that action without necessarily waiting for the owner's consent?

Mr. Anthony Grant: My answer, at short notice, will be a little off-the-cuff.
It is true that powers were taken in the other Act to enable the Secretary of State to take certain steps in the event of the danger of major oil pollution, but one would not expect that power to be used except in the most extreme cases. In most cases it would be for the owner

to instruct salvors, and the purpose of the Amendment is to remove any inhibitions or nervousness, due to financial reasons, which salvors may have about taking the necessary action.
In the extremely unlikely event of the Secretary of State himself having to instruct salvors, I do not think that the Amendment would necessarily alter his position. In fact, I think that it would assist, because salvors would be able to undertake any task given to them by the Secretary of State without incurring liability under the Bill.
I think that my off-the-cuff answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that in the unlikely event of the Secretary of State having to take extreme powers under the other Statute no inhibitions would be placed in the way of salvors undertaking any work that he might want them to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

COMPULSORY INSURANCE AGAINST LIABILITY FOR POLLUTION

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 2, leave out from 'by' to end of line 17 and insert :
' or under the authority of the Government of any Convention country '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that it will be convenient if, with this Amendment, we discuss Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Booth: If the Clause were to go through unamended, the legal position would be that ships sailing into and out of United Kingdom ports would do so under insurance requirements which could fall into one of three categories. If they were United Kingdom ships, they would be required to carry a certificate of insurance against oil pollution damage which they may cause issued by the Secretary of State of this country. If they were ships registered in a Convention country other than the United Kingdom, they would be required to carry a certificate of insurance issued by the Secretary of State for the country in which they were registered. If they were ships registered in a country other than a Convention country, they would be required to carry


a certificate issued by the Secretary of State, or a certificate meeting requirements defined in a regulation, that is to say a certificate which met the requirements laid down by the Secretary of State, presumably of this country.
The effect of Amendment No. 4 would be to simplify the position considerably, and to take away the right to sail a ship without a certificate issued by the Secretary of State of a Convention country. The Amendment is necessary in part because of the difficulty of defining, by regulation issued by the Secretary of State, and approved by the United Kingdom Parliament, a requirement of insurance which would have effect over all the conditions laid down by the country, not being a Convention country, which registers the ship.
One could well imagine the insurer of a vessel, having made the translation into his own language of one of our regulations, putting upon that translation an interpretation of the insurance requirement which was different from that which the Secretary of State intended, and which he would effect when he issued a certificate of insurance to a United Kingdom-registered ship.
Knowing the complexity of legal language a little better than when I first entered the House, I suggest that even English insurers reading some of the regulations issued—if our insurance could be effected in that way—could produce different types of insurance. Therefore, some difficulties of definition are bound to arise if we provide that it will be legal and acceptable for a ship registered in Liberia—or in any other non-Convention country—to enter one of our ports if it can be contended that the certificate of insurance that it is carrying against oil pollution damage claims meets the requirements of the regulations issued by our Secretary of State.
A further objection to the form of the Clause—an objection that is covered by the Amendments—is that it places those who operate ships under flags of convenience countries in a position different from that of those who operate under flags of Convention countries. That is highly undesirable. One might argue the reasons which still cause owners to choose to sail under flags of convenience. However, for the purpose of this legisla-

tion we would not wish to discriminate between ships registered in Convention countries and ships registered in non-Convention countries in respect of insurance requirements for damage against oil pollution; we would want all ships that sailed into United Kingdom ports, or sailed in a way that put at hazard any of our constituents for oil pollution purposes—or any of the peoples of a Convention country—to be in an identical position in respect of the safeguards provided by insurance, whether the ship that brought about the hazard was registered in a Convention or a non-Convention country.
With the best will in the world, a Secretary of State would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve that desirable aim if he had to operate the Clause as it stands.
A further practical problem arises on the Clause. The certificates of insurance which will have to be produced to meet the requirements of the regulation would not necessarily be examined until such time as the ship concerned came into a Convention country's port—and there is no guarantee that even then the certificate would be examined—whereas the certificates carried by ships registered in Convention countries would be issued by the Secretaries of State in those countries in every case, and therefore they would require the prior examination of those Secretaries of State and to that extent would provide the safeguard entailed in the examination and issue of a certificate, which could not be said to exist in the case of non-Convention countries which provided certificate of insurance under subsection (3)(c) and (4) of the Clause.
We hope that this legislation will be one of the factors that will bring about the reduction in oil pollution damage and consequent claims. In spite of that, we must examine how effective the legislation will be in dealing with those cases where oil pollution takes place and claims arise, if the Clause is unamended it would seem to provide a defence to a person whose insurance is defective—a defence that the insurance certificate carried complied with the requirements of the regulation. That defence would be open only to those who sailed under flags of convenience countries which were covered by regulations in such a way as to enable them to issue these certificates.
That position must be suspect because of the limitations of the Convention. If every country took as serious a view of the risks involved to international shipping as do the Convention countries, many more countries would be party to the Convention and, secondly, many more countries would be ready immediately to co-operate in framing legislation to match that of Convention countries. Since that is not the case, that aspect of the Clause must be suspect.
7.45 p.m.
There is also the difficulty of the financial incentive to produce a cheaper insurance if a way of doing so can be found under the provisions of the regulations. Having seen an insurance company crash and many people being left without insurance, this Parliament should be very careful in considering Clauses that allow for different types of insurance to cover basically the same risk. If anything, the risk may be higher when a ship sails into our waters if that ship is not a United Kingdom-registered ship or the ship of another Convention country.

The Clause undoubtedly makes provision for regulations to be different for different countries. That is the only sense that we can make of subsection (4)(a) and (b), which allows regulations to provide that a certificate may be recognised if it is issued in a country in which the ship is registered—but insured, presumably, outside the country in which it is registered—if it is a ship registered outside the Convention countries. That lends itself to difficulties and to a multiplicity of forms of insurance.

The gist of my argument is that the Clause is risky, and makes for tremendous complication. The Minister wants to reduce the risk, and I am sure that he wants to get away from complication and would like to see an equal position apply—a position of absolute parity between all ships which sail into Convention countries' ports, be they registered there or not, and having the sole requirement that they carry a certificate of insurance issued by the Secretary of State of a Convention country. It is in order to achieve that aim, in the interest of achieving a higher measure of safety against the pollution of our waters and the pollution risks which can fall to

those whom we represent, that I move the Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is trying to do something with which I sympathise, but I do not think that I can accept the Amendment. He wants to increase safety generally, raise standards of insurance and encourage as many Governments as possible to join the Convention. But the provisions relating to insurance certificates are not necessarily the right vehicle for this purpose.
A ship which is registered in a non-Convention country may well be properly and adequately insured by a United Kingdom insurer, in which case a certificate issued by the Secretary of State would be applicable, or by a suitable insurer in a third country where the supervision of insurance was known to be satisfactory. In this case, a certificate recognised for this purpose by regulations made by the Secretary of State would be acceptable. Insurance, particularly marine insurance, is essentially an international operation and it would not in our view be appropriate to insist that the issue certificate should be confined to Convention States.
We are looking forward to another conference in Brussels in November to negotiate the setting up of an international compensation fund for oil pollution damage. The fund Convention will be based on the 1969 Convention, and Slates will not be able to ratify the former without ratifying the latter. This will be the stimulus for them to come within the Convention.
If claimants are successful, they will be able to look to oil interests as well as to shipowners and their insurers for compensation up to a very high amount. We cannot tell what the agreed limits will be, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we aim for limits which are high enough to cover the worst possible catastrophe to this country and not so high as to encourage inefficient cleaning up of the mess. In the meantime, we rely on the cover of the voluntary schemes of TOVALOP and CRISTAL.
At the end of the subsection it says in effect that the countries nominated as acceptable certified authorities need not necessarily be nominated solely as certifying authorities for tankers registered in


their own countries. In this connection, we envisage that the main factor influencing the recognition of countries for this purpose—it should be noted that such countries would be Convention countries or non-Convention countries—would be the Secretary of State of this country assessing the reliability and the quality of the countries' insurers.
I hope that the hon. Member will agree that it is desirable that the Bill should spell out who can make the regulations and without fettering unduly the discretion of the Secretary of State as to what those regulations should contain. I entirely appreciate the hon. Gentleman's motives, but they are misconceived in the sense of the Convention as a whole. I believe that it is better to deal with the matter as we have done in the Bill, by allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations in this respect. The House may rest assured that the Secretary of State will ensure that the highest standard of insurance is applicable in these cases.

Mr. James Johnson: I take it then that this will be a selective list, that the Secretary of State will, at his own discretion, black list or eliminate some countries which he deems not to be worthy of being on the list.

Mr. Grant: That does not quite put the position correctly. It is not the countries : it is for the Secretary of State to determine the quality of the insurance. There might be a country of which someone disapproved, but that is not the point. We cannot leave a situation whereby lay magistrates may have to determine this question by going through the complexities of international insurance. Although I appreciate the motives, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Booth: I should like to put two points to the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member may reply to the debate.

Mr. Booth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If the aim of the Clause is to recognise the international character of marine insurance, and thereby enable the Secretary of State to frame regulations which will allow shipping companies to go to various shipowners to get their insurance,

why should not this apply to all Convention country ships? Why should not British companies go shopping around the world for insurance? Why not lay down a specific requirement that these certificates should be issued by our Secretary of State?
Are we supposed to read Clause 10(4) as superseding Clause 10(3)? May the regulations be drafted in a form which will override subsection (3) and allow the international character of marine insurance to operate freely across all Convention ships? This is a ridiculous position. That part of the Minister's reply will not stand up against what we were discussing in Committee or against the principal aim of requiring the certification by the Secretaries of State of Convention countries.

Mr. Anthony Grant: By leave of the House. I do not wish to make too heavy weather of this. Even looking at it as a layman, I do not believe that the drafting of subsection (4) which says that the Secretary of State may make these regulations, is inconsistent with subsection (3)(c), which merely refers to regulations.

The Amendment effectively would exclude non-Convention countries, but I could envisage a situation whereby a Convention country might well have very unsatisfactory insurance arrangements and a non-Convention country might provide a most excellent insurance. It would be a pity to exclude it in that way. It would probably be invidious if I gave examples to stand as the highest standards of insurance, but it may not be a Convention country. This would be invidious. This is why I urge the House not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Mason: I beg to move, Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 28, leave ' £15,000 ' and insert ' £30,000' ;

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it is convenient to take also Amendments No. 7, in page 7, line 28, leave out ' £15,000 ' ind insert ' £35,000 ' ;
No. 8 in line 32, leave out ' £200 ' and insert :
'£300 upon first conviction and for second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000' ;


No. 9, in line 32, leave out ' £200 ' and insert '£400'.

Mr. Mason: There are four Amendments grouped together here. It will be my intention to speak mainly on Amendment No. 6, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will specifically deal with Amendment No. 8.
This fine of £15,000 proposed in the Bill is to be imposed on the evaders of compulsory insurance for liability for oil pollution. We believe that this is a derisory sum, that to evaders it is a farcical fine, especially if they decide to ignore the international Convention and will not bother to insure against oil pollution. Of course, the Under-Secretary and the House will know that I am speaking about a minority. We know that many of the oil companies and tanker owners treat oil pollution very seriously indeed. That is why TOVALOP and CRISTAL came about. They are treating this matter extremely seriously.
However, we have to be concerned about a minority, the minority who will not use load-on-top washing methods to avoid forming oil slicks in the sea when they wash out their tanks. These are the fly-by-night oil slickers who clean their tanks by night, discharge crude oil into the sea, and vanish by morning, leaving massive oil slicks behind, the ships having vanished without trace. This is the minority we think must be brought into line.
Progressive and good oil companies and tanker owners will not mind if we increase the fine to the evaders because the good companies will not be caught by it. Tanker owners who are not going to treat this international Convention and this new law of the sea seriously must be punished, and £15,000 is, to my mind, a derisory fine. The Under-Secretary will remember, and hon. Members present this evening will remember, that when we discussed the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, dealing with the illegal discharge of oil, the penalty was made £50,000. Originally in the Bill it was £5,000, but the mood of the Committee on the Bill was such that both sides of the Committee joined hands and encouraged the Minister to write into the Bill

£50,000. Yet here, in this Bill, premeditated evasion of insurance against liability for oil pollution, with all its serious consequences, is to have a fine of only £15,000.
On the rare occasions the potential evader is caught he will pay; he will scoff; and he will move on. There are hundreds of oil tankers calling into our ports every year. We cannot examine them all, but when it is done, and they are found to be guilty of evasion, let us treat that seriously and make the illegal polluter pay. If he pollutes our coastline and is not insured against liability a long legal wrangle will follow and those claiming for damages are unlikely to be satisfied.
The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) has the other two Amendments we are discussing with mine and he would increase the fine from £15,000 to £35,000. We will gladly give way to that if the Under-Secretary is willing to accept that. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that his Amendment and ours were put down now because of the pressure which was applied to the Under-Secretary, who, to avoid the fine being increased in Committee, was forced to say that he would sympathetically consider a higher fine by this stage, so that we are anticipating that at least he will accept the £30,000 proposal which we make or, best, the £35,000 proposal by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Both on the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill and this Bill dealing with civil liability, the mood throughout has been that there must be high fines for oil polluters, and either the £30,000 or the £35,000 fine would be better than the small, derisory £15,000. In keeping with that mood I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will accept either the £30,000 or the £35,000. Those who attempt evasion of their liabilities, or pollute the sea and our shores, should not escape their financial responsibilities, and must be fined accordingly, and I hope that at the conclusion of this debate the Under-Secretary will accept either the £30,000 or the £35,000 fine proposed

Mr. Peter Rees: I rise to draw the attention of the House to my Amendments No. 7 and No. 9 which, like the Amendments put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), are designed to stiffen the


penalties on shipowners who fail to insure their tankers against pollution, and against masters who fail to carry certificates of insurance.
My Amendments are purely designed to raise the maximum penalties. They are not fixed penalties. It will be at the discretion of the bench of magistrates whether to award the full penalty or, where there are mitigating circumstances, to award some lesser penalty.
I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Government upon bringing it forward. This is the first Government to implement the Convention on which the Bill is based, and I think that that is greatly to the credit of this country and of this Government.
Of course, this particular provision, and my Amendments to it, are not aimed at reputable tanker companies, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said. Indeed, I should like to pay tribute to B.P. for the very rapid and prompt assistance when the "Panther" grounded on the Goodwins. It set a very good example for other oil companies in similar situations. Unfortunately, there are less reputable companies, possibly registered in other countries, which may be tempted to chance their arm in falling foul of the law of this country and the premiums which, I have no doubt, insurers will exact. It is against those people my Amendments are particularly aimed.
There is certainly in East Kent widespread concern, which I share, on the question of oil pollution. It is not an academic problem. Indeed, having bathed or walked on the beaches I can personally testify to the horrible oil patches floating in the sea and to the filthy sight of it on our beaches. That is what has moved me and the people of East Kent to demand really stiff penalties for those people who are callous enough to damage them.
There is to this provision a very real parallel in the Road Traffic Acts. It is fair to observe that the penalties which can be imposed for failing to have third party insurance are comparable to but are a great deal more severe than those which can be imposed under this Bill, even if either the Amendments which I propose or those which the hon. Gentleman proposes are accepted. There is no question of barring absolutely from this

country's shores ships which are improperly insured.
What I want to see is this Bill given teeth, teeth which are both sharp and white. I hope it will have two consequences, not only of easing the task of those attempting to exact damages on those responsible for pollution, but also of raising standards of seamanship, because I am very certain that insurance companies and Lloyd's will take note of this and will raise the premiums for those companies which have a bad accident record.
The Minister was a little reluctant in Committee to acecpt this kind of Amendment, and was disposed to contrast the offence provided for in the Bill with that in the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, and it is fair to observe that under the latter Bill the deliberate discharge of oil only carries a penalty of up to £50,000, and deliberate discharge is clearly an offence of far greater gravity than that of merely failing to insure against spillage. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise, particularly after the generous words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley, that I here suggest a reasonable compromise, which I hope he will feel able to accept.

Mr. James Johnson: The Minister will accept that we all want the Bill, and welcome it. It is an all-party Bill. As we all love the Minister so much, it seems a pity that, like the boy who stood upon the burning deck, he should on this Bill, as in the case of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, find himself not being manœuvred, but by sheer dauntless will force into isolation. None of us likes that. We want to work as a team.
What is involved is not a matter of abstruse international law, or a labyrinth in which we all get lost and then come back again to find each other. The issue is just that there are these villains on the high seas who scatter filth about which often gets on our shores. Society today is more than keen, it is enthusiastic about eliminating pollution. We have this small minority of anti-social people, and the only issue is how to deter them from their practices.
The Oil in Navigable Waters Bill first proposed a penalty of £5,000, but the Minister, with dignity and good will, gave way to the Committee's demand and


agreed to increase the amount to £50,000. Lest he be forced again into isolation I urge him to follow his previous course. Henry Ford said that all history is bunk. I do not accept that view. Teachers sometimes tell us that history never repeats itself, but it can and should, and tonight I think that it will.
I agree with all that has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees). It is good that on these matters we can both talk the same language for the sake of people on the high seas, and on the shores, too. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about teeth. I do not want the Bill to have teeth. I want it to have big sharp spikes that we can stick into people who thwart society and behave like this. Let us have a deterrent. In terms of the amount of damage done and the amount of insurance involved. I suggest that a penalty of £35,000 is not out of way, especially when one thinks, too, of the enormous cargoes carried and the huge sums involved.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Booth: The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) and I have two things in common tonight. One is a concern that the penalties for sailing a ship uninsured should be adequate, and the other is our representation of constituencies with a considerable amount of coastline. My constituency, having some offshore islands, probably has a little more coastline than his, but I do not make any point about that.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have fairly posed the need for a proper relationship between the penalty and the degree of offence resulting in a massive discharge of oil at sea. In post-war years the growth in this risk has been enormous : if ever there was a growth industry, it has been the conveying of oil by sea. In the immediate post-war years we regarded the mighty "Queens" as the monarchs of the sea, thinking of them in terms of size and opulence. But they are almost mini-boats compared with the sort of tankers we can foresee in the immediate future. We can talk seriously now of ½ million and even 1 million ton tankers. The risk of major oil pollution is therefore enormous, and the penalty

for failing to insure against claims for oil damage must be seen in that context.
Another factor is the international character of the oil-carrying industry. In connection with Amendment No. 4, the Minister fairly referred to the international character of insurance, and there is provision in the Bill for a person suffering damage to proceed directly against an insurer. This is a relatively new provision in our law, and one of the utmost importance in connection with the shipping industry. Those who in the past have had to proceed with claims against owners or masters of ships for damage caused by their vessels have frequently been involved in the most hideous complexities of law in connection with ship ownership. The practice of ships being owned by companies in one State and leased to subsidiaries in other States has become common. The practice of chartering ships to companies by subsidiaries of the owners is not uncommon, nor is the multi-national staffing of companies and ships. The labyrinth of international law involved in pursuing claims against masters or owners as a result of these practices has increased to alarming proportions. In the case of the "Torrey Canyon", when great legal expertise was brought to bear in connection with claims for damage, only 50 per cent. of the cost sustained was recovered.
I therefore take very seriously the provisions enabling anyone suffering damage to proceed directly against the insurer. It is an excellent proposal, and the Government are to be congratulated on it. But, as a corollary, the Government must realise that it is absolutely essential to enable the insurer to be identified, and also to make sure that the vessel is insured. It must therefore be considered to be a very serious offence not to have a certificate of insurance available on the ship for examination.
I agree with those who have congratulated the Government on being one of the first to bring in legislation necessary for the operation of the Convention, but that carries an additional responsibility, too. We are setting a precedent here, so we must make sure that we have the wording absolutely right. The Minister has hinted earlier tonight at some of the foreseeable difficulties in operating this when he mentioned the difficulty of


the salvor in obtaining insurance against the sort of claim he might have to meet if he were held to be responsible for pollution damage.
As a result of the bad operating practices of some companies, which the hon. and learned Member for Dover mentioned, we foresee the possibilities being examined by insurers. What is the insurer to think of some of the reports that have been made as a result of inquiries into accidents which have resulted in massive pollution damage? For instance, there has been a report that a vessel carrying many thousands of tons of oil did not have its navigational equipment working properly, and a report to the effect that there was not a qualified man upon the bridge. Surely, any objective assessment of insurance risk against major oil pollution must take these factors into account. If the penalties do no more than induce tanker owners to ensure that their ships have proper navigational equipment and that their bridges are properly manned, they will have done a great deal to achieve the end desired by all those who have welcomed the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I hasten to assure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) that the last thing I ever wish to be is in a state of total isolation. I have listened very carefully to the speeches made tonight, as I did to the debate in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) recalled to the attention of the House that the Government decided, as a result of strong expressions of opinion from both sides of the House on the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, as it now is, to raise the maximum penalty for illegal discharge of oil, and other related offences in that Act, from £5,000 to £50,000. It has been argued, in previous consideration of the Bill, that the penalties of £15,000 for failure to have the requisite certificate of insurance and of £200 for failure to produce that certificate were inadequate, and we had a very full and careful debate in Committee on this subject. I listened very carefully to the views expressed on both sides. Since the Committee Stage, I have looked at this question again in the light of penalties relating to other offences over a wide

area. I still contend, as I did in Committee, and it should be made perfectly clear, that the offence with which we are dealing here, the failure to have insurance cover, must be distinct from the offence under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act of deliberately discharging oil into the sea. Therefore, a distinction must be preserved. Nevertheless, I recognise fully the arguments urged on me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), who keeps at me very vigorously on this point, and the arguments of the Opposition, too.
As I am in a generous mood, I can tell the right hon. Member for Barnsley that I am prepared to accept the higher figures now proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, the £35,000 figure and the £400 figure for the lesser offence, instead of £15,000 and £200. These higher figures entirely meet the spirit of the similar Amendments put down by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, so we are at one in that respect.
As to the proposal of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) that the £300 should only apply to a first conviction and that for subsequent convictions the fine should be £1,000, I am afraid that I cannot accept that proposal. We should be satisfied with a maximum penalty of £400 for failure to carry or produce an existing certificate, which would be more than sufficient to discourage repetition of the offence.
I make these concessions having regard to the strength of feelings expressed on both sides of the House. After all, that is what Parliament is all about. I want to make it clear that the Amendments maintain the distinction between these offences and the offence in the Oil in Navigable Waters Act. I reiterate what my hon. and learned Friend has said for the benefit of magistrates, who will have to have these very considerable powers at their disposal, that these limitations are definitely maximum limits which obviously would only be used in the most extreme case.
I am prepared, therefore, to accept Amendments Nos. 7 and 9.

Mr. Mason: On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so forthcoming and for recognising the need to increase the fines against those who may be willing to


evade their responsibilities and may, thereby, be likely to pollute the seas and the coastline, and possibly escape their financial liabilities.
The hon. Gentleman knows, as do all of us who have sat through the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill and now this Bill, that during the course of the proceedings on both Bills we have been creating a precedent for many of the major maritime nations of the world. We can be proud that we have been in the forefront and that we have bettered both Bills during their Committee stages. But, above all, we can be proud that we are keen to make the polluter pay. The serious consequences that can flow from oil pollution will be punished, and we shall curb oil pollution as quickly as we can.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made : No. 7, in page 7, line 28 leave out '£15,000' and insert ' £35,000 '.

No. 9, in line 32, leave out ' £200 ' and insert ' £400'.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — ROMANIAN NITRATES (ANTI-DUMPING)

8.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move,
That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 3) Order 1971 (S.I. 1971, No. 1048), dated 23rd June, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
The Order, which has been made under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1969, imposes an anti-dumping duty of £3·39 per ton on ammonium nitrate originating in Romania and imported into the United Kingdom between 1st April, 1971 and 22nd June, 1971 in-

clusive. It also revokes the Anti-Dumping (Provisional Charge to Duty) (No. 2) Order, 1971, which imposed provisional charges to anti-dumping duty of £5 per ton on Romanian ammonium nitrate and £6 per ton on calcium ammonium nitrate for a period of three months from 1st April, 1971.
The making of the present Order and of the Order imposing the provisional charges, now revoked, is a further follow-up of anti-dumping action that was taken in May, 1970, against dumped imports of calcium ammonium nitrate from six countries in Western Europe. In announcing this action the Department stated that, if evidence were received of any other significant imports of calcium ammonium nitrate or of the two other straight nitrogenous fertilisers, ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphonitrate, at dumped prices, urgent consideration would be given to extending anti-dumping action to those imports. Accordingly, anti-dumping duties were imposed later in the year on ammonium sulphonitrate from West Germany and calcium ammonium nitrate from South Africa.
When our import statistics showed significant imports of ammonium nitrate and calcium ammonium nitrate from Romania in February this year at apparently dumped prices, we imposed provisional anti-dumping charges while we investigated the matter. The investigation showed that the imports of ammonium nitrate which took place from 1st April onwards were dumped by a margin of £3.39 per ton but that the calcium ammonium nitrate imported from Romania in this period was not dumped to any significant extent. Accordingly, £3.39 per ton of the anti-dumping charges paid on the ammonium nitrate will be retained in payment of the duty imposed under this Order. The balance of the £5 charge together with charges collected on the calcium ammonium nitrate is being refunded.
No anti-dumping duty is imposed on any imports of these fertilisers from Romania after 22nd June because the importer has given satisfactory undertakings that there will be no further imports at dumped prices.
I invite the House to approve this Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS)

8.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
The draft Order would raise the limit on the borrowing powers of the Scottish Electricity Boards from its present level of £700 million to £800 million, the maximum provided for in Section 47(7) of the Electricity Act, 1947, as amended by the Electricity (Scotland) Act, 1969. This limit applies to the combined total of the outstanding borrowings of the two Scottish Electricity Boards, including any borrowing in foreign currency under the Gas and Electricity Act, 1968.
The Explanatory Memorandum which was published in October, 1968 with the Scottish Bill explained that the limit of £800 million was estimated to meet the Boards' net borrowing requirements to 31st March, 1975. To ensure that Parliament would have an opportunity of reviewing the Boards' progress during the period, the Bill prescribed an interim limit of £700 million beyond which the Boards would not have power to borrow unless the Secretary of State made an Order, subject to the approval of the House of Commons. In the debate on the Bill it was stated that this interim limit was expected to be reached in 1972. This limit is now likely to be reached in the second half of this year, and it gives us a slightly earlier opportunity than expected to review the Scottish electricity position.
The efficient planning and the continued expansion of electricity resources are essential to the economic growth of Scotland. To maximise efficiency, the forward planning of new generating capacity and the operation of the stations are undertaken as combined exercises by the two Boards. This gives the greatest benefit to Scotland as a whole and it means that the investment in a particular generating station is not solely to meet the needs of the Board responsible for building the station. For this reason the investment and borrowing requirements must be looked at from the point of view of the overall needs of Scotland.
The rate of increase in the demand for electricity in Scotland has fallen considerably during the past three years and the rate of growth in future years is now expected to be rather lower than was estimated in 1968. This is the general experience throughout Britain. This has brought reductions in the transmission and distribution investment programmes of the Boards which have more than compensated for changes in price levels which have taken place. Investment in generating stations, which take five to seven years to design and build, is not, however, so susceptible to short-term adjustments and current capital expediture is mainly on stations which were either under construction or in the final planning stage in 1968. These, of course have been affected by subsequent cost increases. The capital requirements of the Boards in the four years to 31st March, 1972—now estimated at £325 million—are therefore expected to be about £23 million higher than the 1968 estimate. This together with a fall of £28 million in the sums available from internal resources—that is lower profits—has meant that borrowing in the four-year period will be some £51 million more than expected.
The reaching of the £700 million limit rather earlier than expected can, therefore, be attributed to the inflationary situation which has troubled all sectors of the economy and has resulted in both higher capital costs and in a lower level of self-financing. The 1968 estimates were based on prices ruling at that time and made no allowance for any price increases. The effect of these, unfortunately, may be increasingly pronounced in future years. Moreover, as considerable sums of retention money on construction contracts are due to be paid during the next financial year, it is unlikely that the £800 million final limit fixed by the 1969 Act will last beyond the end of 1972. The draft Order, therefore, provides for the extension of the limit to the statutory maximum of £800 million and it will probably be necessary for the Secretary of State to introduce legislation next Session fixing a new limit.
As I have said, the increase in the estimated borrowing requirements of the two Boards is due mainly to the effects of the inflationary situation which was inherited by the present Administration and which they are determined to get


under control. It is affecting every part of the economy, both private and public, and it is perhaps a useful reminder to those who would press for a relaxation of the Government's efforts to see before them examples such as this of the way in which efficient management can be frustrated by this inflationary spiral.
The Scottish Electricity Boards are, rightly, very proud of their record in improving productivity and efficiency. Productivity payment schemes have been pressed forward at maximum speed with highly successful results and I am assured by both Boards that this will continue. The Boards are very well advanced in this field, but even they cannot in this way absorb cost increases of recent levels.
To have met these higher costs and at the same time to have maintained the estimated level of self-financing would have required tariff increases of an unacceptably high level which would themselves have added to the inflationary spiral. It was for this reason that the Boards were asked, when framing the tariff increase proposals introduced in February of this year, to take full account of the Government's view that in existing circumstances price increases should be kept to a minimum. Both Boards have had two tariff increases during the past year. In its annual report the South Board mention that a period of stability of tariffs is desirable and that for this reason-although 1971–72 will be a loss-making year—the Board would prefer to make no immediate move towards a further increase in tariffs.
It is our policy as a Government to avoid as far as possible intervention in the internal and day-to-day management of the nationalised industries. I am satisfied that both Boards are doing everything possible to meet the present difficult situation and to supply their consumers as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Their need for the extension of the present limit to £800 million is beyond doubt and I ask the House to approve the Order so that the Boards can be provided with the funds necessary to carry out their important functions on which the economic and social welfare of Scotland depends so much.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Perhaps the Minister

would answer a few questions before we pass the Order.
As the Minister explained, the Order raises the borrowing limit, but he has not indicated the level of borrowing by the two Boards. I understand that it is well in excess of £600 million. One of the anomalies of the total borrowing of the two Boards is the large percentage of borrowing in relation to demand emanating from the North of Scotland Board. I estimate that 39 per cent. of the total borrowing commitment arises from the North of Scotland Board. Could the Minister say a word about the reasons for that? I have my own views.
The North of Scotland Board is engaged in a highly capital-intensive enterprise. We ought to congratulate the Board on its policy of expanding demand in the area, on its social purpose, and on its policy to assist in promoting the attraction of industry to its area. I should like to hear comment from the Minister on the amount of borrowing in which the North of Scotland Board is involved, in particular, with reference to its work in connection with the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. I know that the bulk of the supply there will come from Hunterston B, but the transmission costs will come to the North of Scotland Board.
The Minister made one or two points which are of interest not only in connection with the Order but in connection with electricity supply in Scotland generally. Although my constituency does not cover the power station at Longannet, a number of my constituents work in the mines supplying coal to that station. During the weekend, I had representations made to me about the failure of some of the turbo-generators there. The South of Scotland Board is involved in costs in this connection, and these are of relevance in considering its borrowing requirement. These failures are an embarrassment to the Board, and I should like to know what sort of contracts the Board has concluded with its suppliers and whether there are clauses in the contracts allowing the Board to recoup any losses caused, in part, by the failure of materials supplied to it. The Board itself ought not to be embarrassed, and its consumers ought not to be indirectly embarrassed, particularly when there are inflationary pressures in society generally. It ought not to suffer


further embarrassment due to additional costs brought about by the failure of certain suppliers to meet agreed specifications and standards of performance.
The Minister rightly pointed to the remarkable achievements and improvements in efficiency of both Boards. The Boards have to meet certain targets of return on their assets specified by Governments of both parties, although the North of Scotland Board's target is of a somewhat different type. One of the reasons for the failure to meet these targets has been excessive inflationary pressure. But the Minister seemed to suggest that the inflationary pressure might have come from one of two sources, perhaps the inflationary effect of wage claims or, on the other hand, excessive prices of raw materials which the Board uses to produce its final product. He did not mention that the cost of money has been rising, but this is an important factor outside the Board's own orbit.
It is proposed to raise the borrowing limit, but it is to be raised in the context of high interest rates prevailing in the economy as a whole. The return on net assets is made up of three components, depreciation, interest, and additional profitability. On this basis, it seems to me that the South of Scotland Board should, in general, be reaching about 12·5 per cent., but its inability to reach this figure is due partly to high interest charges, and especially so in relation to what it has to bear in capital construction before it takes its product to the grid. We can argue about this. We must concede that if the interest charge rises it might be part of the Government's policy to make certain allowances for that in the Boards' targets. But the inflationary pressures are not wholly of the Boards' making; they relate to the Government's overall strategy.
The Minister has said that we are bouncing about near the ceiling of £700 million. I understand that the ceiling of £800 million about which he spoke tonight will last only until 1973–74. The Boards cannot assess demand merely for a year or two ahead. They must look seven years ahead. Demand management, particularly of electricity, relates directly to the growth of the gross domestic product.
It is a serious thing for the Minister to acknowledge that we are likely to be bouncing about at the ceiling. A Board can be embarrassed in two ways. If the growth of the G.D.P. exceeds its target it is likely to find itself with insufficient supply to meet eventual demand, which can be very costly to it, but if the growth of G.D.P. is less than its target it is still caught, because its assets are not being fully deployed. Therefore, whilst the Minister rightly emphasises the responsibility of the Boards for day-to-day management, the economic atmosphere in which they operate is conditioned by the Government overall.
I should like an indication from the Minister whether the Boards are being given sufficient assurances that the Government's growth target, particularly for the Scottish region, will be met. There is no evidence that the rather meagre growth target set by the present Government will be met. What discussions is the Department having with the Scottish Boards to give them some assurances about future capital investment? If they are to be allowed to borrow, it is very important not to place an exorbitant charge on the public purse by embarrassing them at the end of the day, by having allowed them to create assets which are not fully deployed, because of the Government's economic policies.
The Boards have had an insufficient allowance for self-financing, partly because of the inflationary pressures within the economy, which show no signs of lessening. The Minister's remarks gave no hope that he will assist in creating an atmosphere in which those pressures on the Boards will be lessened. If they get into difficulties in meeting the onerous targets they have been set, particularly the South of Scotland Electricity Board, will the Government immediately step in to give them some assurances that there will be no restriction on their necessary capital expenditure because of excessive inflationary pressures?
The Boards are entitled to borrow in foreign currencies. We can get some indication from its annual reports of the foreign currency borrowings by the North of Scotland Board, but a cursory glance at the balance sheets gives no indication of the foreign currency borrowings by the South of Scotland Board. My right hon. and hon. Friends who are suspicious


about entry into the European Economic Community can see here a welcome example of public corporations having crossed barriers, presumably because of more favourable rates of interest on the Continent. I imagine that one of the reasons why they chose to borrow on the Continent—although the relatively small sum of about £3 million in all was borrowed by the North of Scotland Board—was that the rate of interest prevailing on the Continent was lower.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I intervene briefly. It was customary when we had these debates in the cosy confines of the Scottish Grand Committee to make much longer speeches. Tonight, however, I am here to impress upon the Minister the need to recognise the changed position in the coal mining industry, not only in Britain as a whole, but in Scotland in particular. I suggest that he should impress upon the South of Scotland Electricity Board that coal is on the way up again and that he should do his best to impress upon the Board to make the main use of coal in the production of electricity in Scotland. We have heard over a number of years that coal was not competitive with oil, but I think it is now widely understood that coal can stand on its own against oil. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take note of this and impress it upon the Board at a suitable opportunity.
The purpose of my intervention is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) concerning Longannet power station. I put down a Written Question last week to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking the reasons for the cause of the breakdown and what would be the result. The Secretary of State was able to tell me that it would be nearly the end of the year before two of the generators were ready for use again and that it would not be until later, perhaps early in 1972, that the third generator would be ready for use. This would seem to me to be a very costly business and I am sure that the limit of borrowing which has been brought forward tonight will not be sufficient, because I understand that the cost of meeting the breakdown will be very heavy.
It has been said—I do not know whether it is correct—that no one at the power station, where many people work, will be out of a job. This means that this body of men will be employed throughout this period without any production. It was also pointed out in answer to my Question that the supply to consumers in Scotland would not be affected. I sincerely hope that it will not be affected, but I cannot understand how a breakdown at the power station, which has been operating for almost a year, will not affect the supply to consumers.
I also raised in my Question the important matter of cost. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he would not initiate a public inquiry into the cause or the reasons for the breakdown. The Secretary of State replied that he felt that a public inquiry was not necessary at this time. In my view, an inquiry of some kind is necessary because, with my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire, I feel that this will be a costly affair. After all, someone must be to blame for the three generators breaking down, and I feel that it can only be the supplier. I therefore ask the Minister to ask his right hon. Friend to institute an inquiry into the causes of the breakdown of the three generators at Longannet power station.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The Under-Secretary will not expect any prizes for guessing the subject which I wish to raise. I thought that it might be easy to mention the coal industry in the course of the debate, but little did I dream that we could become involved in the merits of joining the Common Market. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) knows that I am one of those who are sceptical about what he suggests will be the wonderful results to be obtained from joining the Common Market.
The South of Scotland Electricity Board is somewhat out of date and it must realise that coal now enjoys a seller's market and that the propaganda in which the S.S.E.B. is engaged does not do the indigenous industry any good. It must appreciate that is a seller's market not only for coal but for oil. No Minister can promise that oil supplies will be safeguarded, or that there will be price


stability. The S.S.E.B. should adopt a more modern approach when it draws comparisons between the prices of coal and oil. The "knocking" of coal is out of date, and the sooner that is understood, the better.
I apologise to the Under-Secretary for not being here when he began his speech; I was detained elsewhere. He spoke about the cost element. He will recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and I took part in an Adjournment debate when in the time available to us we drew attention to the S.S.E.B.'s proposal that the Portobello coal-fired power station should be converted to oil-fired.
Portobello power station is in my hon. Friend's constituency and he argued a valiant case which was much appreciated by his constituents and by the miners. He and I have a joint interest in that the jobs of many miners are involved. We are talking about 1,200 or 1,300 jobs when the unemployment situation in Scotland is uncertain. With the state of the Scottish economy, we can ill afford to lose that many jobs, and the cost element argument of the S.S.E.B. does not stand examination. That is why I said that it was out of date. The men affected work at pits such as the Lady Victoria and the Whitrigg pit in my constituency.
During the Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary said that he was considering the facts and figures, and he admitted that the case for continuing coal-firing was probably stronger than that for converting to oil-firing, because of the present world situation.
Since this Order is concerned with vast capital sums, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give some consideration to this matter before he replies to the debate. The decision is awaited anxiously. One might be forgiven for thinking otherwise in view of recent temperatures, but we shall be passing shortly from summer. At this time of year, in view of the lack of job opportunity in Scotland, it is unfair that there should be any doubt about the future of 1,300 jobs there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that this mad suggestion of the S.S.E.B.—made in economic terms—is a non-starter and that the jobs which are in peril in the area will be safeguarded.
The hon. Gentleman may also wish to comment on the situation at Inverkip. Some years ago, there was considerable optimism about the fact that Inverkip power station would be oil-fired. Despite the doubts of a number of hon. Members, we were told that there would be an oil bonanza and that price stability was assured. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to say that he has received assurances about the availability of oil supplies to Inverkip. At the time, we were told that the station had to be oil-fired because of the non-availability of coal and the cost factors involved. In the recent Adjournment debate, I gave figures to show conclusively that the cost factor element is rapidly disappearing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on the present position. Are oil supplies to Inverkip assured, or is there any question of a change of mind because of the introduction of new factors arising in the altered world situation?
I return, however, to what is probably the most important point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can assure the House that the 1,300 jobs in doubt in relation to the Portobello station are in fact perfectly safe, in the interests of the miners in the area.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I, too, must apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for not being here when he introduced the Order. I hasten to say that it was not because I have been in Scotland. I have been in Bristol. I must also apologise, as Englishmen do on these occasions, for intervening in a Scottish debate, though there is no reason why I should since my interest in electricity is fairly well known to hon. Members.
In March of this year, there was an Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order for England and Wales; in other words, for that part of the nationalised electricity supply industry south of the Border which comes under the general supervision of the Electricity Council. I had an opportunity to take part in the debate on that Order, and I made three principal points.
The first was that the amount extra required to be borrowed was extremely moderate for the electricity supply industry generally and that the fact that it was moderate was no cause for congratulation since the electricity supply industry is peculiar in the sense that it tends to


reflect, almost in a straight line relationship, the prosperity of industry generally. If electricity does not require so much capital for the future, it is because the economy generally is much more restrained than it should be.
The second point was that in terms of return on capital, in terms of numbers of industrial, technical and clerical staff employed in proportion to capacity or kilowatts installed, and in terms of relative price levels, the electricity supply industry was extremely efficient.
The third point was that this efficient public utility gives excellent service to the nation. If it is now in danger of being forced into deficit, as is the South of Scotland Electricity Board, it is not the fault of the industry, but the arbitrary enforcement of Government policies, often against the best judgment of the industry. I propose to concentrate my remarks on that point, taking as my illustration the S.S.E.B. rather than the North of Scotland Electricity Board.
I have studied the last annual report of the S.S.E.B. It is obvious, though it is not put in direct terms, that the Board, in the guarded language which it uses, is deeply hurt and indignant at the treatment that it has received from the Government. The S.S.E.B. shows up in cold concentrated reality the practical effects of the confusion, the ambiguity and the indecision of the Government's policies towards all the nationalised industries. This, more than any previous Conservative Government, is a Government of doctrine. They appear unable to make up their minds how far, if at all, the nationalised industries fit their theories. They are often in the position that they cannot live with the nationalised industries, nor can they live without them. They cannot decide just how mixed the mixed economy should be. On the other hand, the Government state that the nationalised industries must be commercially motivated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Order is very limited. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will restrict his remarks to what is contained in the Order.

Mr. Palmer: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your warning.

I shall do my best to keep within the bounds of order. However, without going too wide, it is interesting to see how the S.S.E.B.'s difficulties reflect the problems which have been brought about for all the nationalised industries by the Government's policies. Subject to your Ruling, I should have thought that that point was perfectly fair.
If, as one might suppose, the Government's policy is that the nationalised industries, including the S.S.E.B., should work on commercial trading lines, then their policies have made nonsense of that proposition so far as it affects the South of Scotland Electricity Board. First, the Government have interfered with the Board's price policies. This is clear from the Board's last annual report in which, on page 2, it says :
When eventually the new tariffs were introduced … the increases were smaller than what was strictly demanded by the situation.
That followed discussions with the Government, because the Board says in its report :
Before finally determining the extent of these essential tariff increases the Board had to give consideration to the views expressed by the Government …".
I suggest that it is not fair to the Board, any more than it would be fair to any other electricity board, that it should be told, on the one hand, to follow commercial considerations, while on the other the Government, without being frank and open enough to give a specific direction, influence it to keep its prices lower than it should do on strict commercial lines.
Second, the South of Scotland Board—like the Central Electricity Generating Board south of the Border—is restricted in its liberty to choose its own fuels. Third, the Government are investigating the Board's profitable contracting and consumer utilisation activities. For those reasons it is impossible for the South of Scotland Board to work on commercial lines at all.
In the matter of price policies, in the last two decades—and this point is made in the report—it is interesting to note that electricity has risen in price, in real terms, by only about one-third of the general rise in prices. That is a remarkable achievement, and when the Board proposed certain adjustments it


was not because its prices had been excessive in the past. In fact, it was the other way round. In terms of sheer price level, even against the other electricity boards in the United Kingdom, the South of Scotland Board comes out very well.
In the matter of the choice of fuels, it has been the general contention of the electricity supply industry that if electricity prices are to be kept at a reasonable level, not only in relation to particular industries, and not only in relation to other fuels used by its competitors in this country, but also in relation to prices that are charged for industrial energy in other countries which, internationally, are our competitiors, and where price enters into the cost of the product, it should be allowed to choose freely between the various primary fuels that are available. These are, coal, oil, nuclear fission and, if I dare mention it, natural gas. I hold the view that the electricity supply industry should be free to use natural gas, in the same way as any other industrial plant is, if it is prepared to pay the going rate.
There are many reasons why the electricity supply industry should always show a bias towards coal, because it is still its first primary fuel, and unless it looks upon the coal industry as a necessary prop to its existence things would be difficult for it. The view that I take—and it is shared by the unions—is that if the coal industry, as most of us would expect, for social and other reasons, requires a subsidy, it should be paid out of general community funds, and not out of the revenues of the electricity supply industry by overcharging for fuel.
It is also particularly hard on the electricity supply industry that, while the gas industry gets its fuel oil free of tax, it has to pay a considerable amount of tax. In its last year of working, the South of Scotland Board had to pay more than £2 million in tax, while its close competitor, the gas industry, got off literally scot free.
I should be interested to hear from the hon. Member what the Government propose to do about this, if anything. I must be fair about it, and point out that the previous Government, which I supported, also did little about it. It would be interesting to know whether the Secretary of State, in collaboration with other Ministers, proposes to make a change now.
I have referred to the foregoing interferences with the reasonable commercial freedom of the electricity supply industry. I have in mind finally the suggested proposal, still going the rounds within the industry, to hive off the more profitable contracting and utilisation activities of the boards. The South of Scotland Electricity Board—I know this without having to be told it by any public relations officer; I have much sounder information resources—has had to make a report to the Government, presumably through the Secretary of State, from its point of view, about the possibility of separating from the Board's own normal finances its contracting and utilisation activities.
Traditionally the electricity supply industry has always consisted of generation, transmission, distribution and utilisation. That is the way that it has evolved and developed. The contracting and utilisation activities operated by electricity undertakings did not date from nationalisation; they go back to the days of municipal and company undertakings.
In those circumstances it is very hard that electricity boards such as the South of Scotland Board, struggling against the dead weight of Governmental policies generally, should have this time-wasting interference with their right to do something they have always done. I suggest to the hon. Member and those of his colleagues who think about these things south of the Border that it would be very interesting. if the Scottish Electricity Boards, in collaboration and conjunction with Electricity Boards generally, took a poll of their consumers to find out whether they agreed that the Boards should not in future carry on these utilisation activities. I believe that the consumers would say, "Certainly not a change; they should be allowed to carry on as in the past!"
When the consumers are dealing with an Electricity Board they know they are dealing with something solid and reliable. If work is not done correctly, or is not maintained at a proper standard, they can return to the Electricity Board; it does not disappear. If the consumers are handed over to the tender mercies of private contractors they will be very much worse off in general and they know it.
I put that point forward seriously. It is the first time that I have had the opportunity to do so. If they think that these


policies will meet with the general approval of the population the Government should be bold enough to give the Boards freedom to take a local consumer poll on the matter. It would be to have the courage of their convictions.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I, too, must apologise to the Minister for not having heard his opening remarks. I have no excuse. I have been in the House all the time. I did not notice the annunciator showing that the Minister was on his feet and that the subject had been raised. I hastened in when I saw it on the annunciator, but I was much too late.
I want to make a point from an angle different from that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). He has been talking about the need for the South of Scotland Electricity Board to operate under reasonable commercial considerations or criteria. It seems to me that that Board is operating under criteria that might be regarded as rather questionable—utilising its monopoly power to do things that many other industries or firms might like to do but are unable to do. I am referring to the practice of charging a deposit before supplying electricity. This relates closely to the question whether the Board requires more borrowing powers or can generate more money itself.
I can see the Board's case. It claims to have considerable bad debts—I think about £400,000. It has adopted a practice which in my area has caused considerable feeling among social works departments. When someone falls into debt and the department is prepared to help him out, the Board demands not merely the outstanding amount but a considerable deposit in addition. The social works department either says that it can do nothing or has to find the extra money. In one case, it was a large sum relative to the actual debt. The task of the social works departments was made more difficult. Unfortunately, there are many bad payers, and some measures must be adopted, but on the occasion with which I was concerned and about which I wrote to the Chairman of the Board, the terms were pretty harsh.
There is also the practice of charging a deposit to a newcomer. When a young

couple move into an all-electric flat, they have to put down a deposit perhaps of six months' estimated expenditure. I wonder whether this practice is acceptable to the Minister. I should like to know under which powers this is done, whether it is a forced loan without interest and whether the money can be paid by instalments. What are the practices elsewhere? If other Boards with the same problems are not engaging in these practices, why should the South of Scotland Electricity Board get away with this and have the practice endorsed by the consultative committee? I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central. We have had the voice of the miners' representative and that of the ex-electricity worker. I am neither, so, representing a steel constituency, perhaps I can adjudicate fairly easily.
This Report, and an excellent Report it is, the Report and Accounts of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, is a cry of protest at the continuance of practices which no normal commercial firm would be expected to put up with. It shows how in a whole range of ways the Board is made to suffer. I want to be fair to the Under-Secretary, and I am not picking on his Government, because I recognise that my Government, too, followed practices comparable with those which the present Government are following. The practices of the one Government and the other are not very different, though it may be that they are a little more intensively followed by the present Government, and followed a little more under cover, the present Government not being so open about them. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us a little about that. However, there is tight control of prices and the failure to take account of increased costs, which have been very substantial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) talked about coal now being in a seller's market. The S.S.E.B. will say it has been made to pay through the nose. Let us not put it that way. I had better say that it has been made to pay very substantially more for coal.

Mr. Adam Hunter: My hon. Friend is looking at last year's Report. There have been dramatic changes since then, particularly with oil-producing countries demanding more for their products.

Mr. Lawson: I am not arguing for or against that, but, on the basis of last year's Report, why has the Board found it necessary to come to this House and to ask for increased borrowing powers?

Mr. Eadie: Would my hon. Friend accept that had he been at the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and participated in by myself he would have heard that we were not theorising about the seller's market but that it is a fact? It is documented.

Mr. Lawson: I am not quarrelling with my hon. Friend, but, if what he says is so, all the more reason why the Electricity Board should be allowed to choose which fuel it wants. My hon. Friend cannot have it all ways, nor can my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter). If his argument is that oil is going up and up in price—

Mr. Adam Hunter: It is a fact.

Mr. Lawson: —well, fair enough; but what I understand the Electricity Board to be arguing is that it should be enabled to choose the fuel it wants and not be compelled to adopt any one fuel. That is what I understand the Board to be crying out for, or one of the things that it is crying out for. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian that, if coal is now in a seller's market, he should be prepared to say of the Electricity Board, "All right, let it pick its fuel".

Mr. Douglas: I think my hon. Friend ought to know that, in terms of agreements made between the N.C.B. and the S.S.E.B. on occasion—I am particularly interested in Longannet—the long-term contract prices have been extremely favourably negotiated between the two Boards, and, in so far as the Coal Board has accepted long-term commitments, they are of benefit to both of the Boards That has to be kept in mind.

Mr. Lawson: I am prepared to accept that from my hon. Friend, but, presumably, under the contract entered into there is long-term advantage to the Coal Board, too, because that pit would not have been developed had it not been for that power station. So there is mutual advantage. I accept this. I am not arguing about it.

I am not aware that this sort of thing is being argued against in the Electricity Board's Report. If the circumstances have so changed that coal has become so scarce and there is a sellers' market, there should be no need to insist so stringently that, come what may, coal it shall be.
This is one of the features which the Board mentions and it is right that we should be able to say this sort of thing if we are to argue on commercial practice. Otherwise I fully subscribe to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central. If we are to insist that those commercial practices shall not over a considerable area apply, we should not apply the measuring criterion normally applied to fully commercial concerns.
Another example of how the Board was badly treated, and badly treated, again, by my own Government—although in some respects and in a rather queer way not so badly treated by the present Government—is that of investment grants. In spite of the hundreds of millions of pounds which the Board spent over the years on property which would normally have been assessed for investment grant, in some cases 40 per cent., it was not able to obtain grants which any large private concern which wanted to put in its own generating plant was obtaining. That happened under my Government. The difference is that the present Government have wiped out investment grants, or propose to do so, which means that in this sense the Board may be said not to be suffering from that injustice. But it does not spring from any desire on the part of the Government to assist the Board. It just happens to work that way in this case.
Even at a cursory glance at the electricity generating industry—and this is true of the whole United Kingdom industry—there is no question about its exceptional efficiency. It measures up to what is done anywhere else. At a time when the characteristic of any other British industry is that we are at the bottom of every production league—and this is the case even with our great chemical concerns—we are pretty well at the top of the electricity generating league, and this is most commendable. Even over the short period of five years mentioned in the Order, electricity units sold per employee have gone up by over 60 per cent. That is quite remarkable,


and very much in excess of what has been done in agriculture, about which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends often brag. The agricultural achievement pales into insignificance in comparison with that of electricity generation.
The electricity generating industry is remarkably successful, but it is at this stage carrying unfair burdens. It should be given much greater freedom than it enjoyed under my Government or is enjoying under the present Government. If it had had that freedom, it would not now be necessary for the Board to seek power to borrow another £100 million. The intention initially was that the Board should pay out of its internal resources 66 per cent. of the cost of fresh development, but because of the policy that has been followed it has been able to pay not quite 40 per cent. It could easily have reached its 66 per cent., and possibly more, if it had been given reasonable freedom not to act in a way that is injurious to the interest of the nation—that is, if it had been given sufficient freedom to enable it to pay for the necessary developments in a way that can be seen to be fair to it as well as to us.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, despite the fact that he represents a different Government, wil say that he agrees, and that the intention is to give the electricity authority much more scope for action than it has had up to the present.

9.35 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has occupied a very unusual position tonight—the middle of the road. He has called himself a referee. Only one thing ever happens to someone in the middle of the road : he gets knecked down. If my hon. Friend is to be criticised, it is for trying to comment on past performances of the Labour Government on this matter, especially when he talks about matters affecting the coal industry, which are rapidly changing, in ways I may be able to touch upon shortly.
The speech that we are about to bear from the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, will be, perhaps, the most significant speech we shall hear about Scottish thermal economics—I think that is the phrase used in the

Office—in the current parliamentary year. We will be given a slight lift of the veil on the Bill that is to come after this Order. We are all concerned about how long the Order will last. In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman said that the figure would go so far. When we were in government it was intended that the figure would go until 1972. The Order will not go as long as that. Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that the date when this Order will run out, on present estimates, affecting both Boards, will be some time this year or early next year. That will mean, therefore, that he is promising us a Bill early in the next Parliamentary Session to carry on the work of both Boards.
This raises the question of whether both Boards will continue. The hon. Gentleman has to satisfy us about that because there is a great deal of speculation at the moment about whether this and other monies voted to nationalised industries will be committed for Boards that will remain as Boards. For example, in The Guardian today there is an article by a very responsible journalist about what the Minister for Industry is about to do to the Gas Council. We are wondering what the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the light of what is the doctrinaire thought of the Government, is about to do with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. The North of Scotland Board has done extremely well in the last year. We have noted the Minister's commendations and we will use them against him and his colleagues if they attempt to merge the North Board with the South Board in their coming Bill. There have been temptations to do that in the past, and as a Government we rejected that proposition.
The financial return on the North Board is much less than that on the South Board, for obvious reasons. We are wondering whether the Under-Secretary is being beguiled into the idea that after the Order, perhaps both Boards should be merged, because the financial performance does not seem to fit in with what is the precondition for return on investment under the present Administration.

Mr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the McKenzie Report


generally came down against the amalgamation of the two Boards?

Dr. Mabon: That is true. In the Report of the North Board there is a reference on page 13 as follows :
Rainfall was heavy in the north in 1970 and this enabled reductions to be made, in the interests of economy, in the amount of generation undertaken by the thermal stations in the pool operated by the two Boards.
When we were in office we stopped this antagonism of the two Boards. We instituted, not only a joint account, but also a pooling arrangement for generation. That stopped all the rivalry between the two boards.
The North of Scotland Board has a very difficult task in trying to connect everyone in its area to the electricity system. It is strange that, with all the argument, Parliament might be considering a situation in which people are not able to get such a simple thing as electricity. When we came into office in 1964 about 90 per cent. of the population there was connected. The Board's most recent report records, with a certain commendation, that 97 per cent. of all potential consumers in the North of Scotland have now been provided for. Three per cent. of the population of the North of Scotland does not represent many people. However, if the two boards were to be merged those people might as well write off any hope of being connected to the system. We will not allow the boards to merge.
The Report of the North of Scotland Board this year has on its front page a photograph of the Invergordon smelter which was introduced by the last Government and which is acknowledged by everyone to be a great success, not only for its intrinsic value, but for what it means in terms of Highland development. I am glad that there are other investors outside the public sphere in Invergordon seeking to open up the area, which is an excellent deep water harbour, for further commercial activities. This is not just a matter of a board helping people in far off areas. It is also the possibility of bringing industry to areas which were formerly written off.
The very existence within the North of Scotland Board's area of the Atomic Energy Authority prototype fast reactor, the most modern in the world—we lead

the world in atomic energy and feed into the North of Scotland system electricity from this most advanced science—is a proof of the tremendous importance of the North of Scotland Board.
The Opposition would resent and fight any attempt to merge the Boards. What merging is needed has been done. It is important to leave the North Board as it is, to leave it to connect up its consumers and to advocate its peculiar point of view of development at the so-called periphery. I do not accept that word, but that is what the Board calls it.
Page 3 of the Report of the North of Scotland Board contains a number of comments about new generating plant. I want some information about these. There is Foyers which we started and which we think will begin production in 1974. The erection of the plant may begin this summer. We are told also that the Board, under the excellent leadership of our old colleague, Tom Fraser, may construct a generating station with a total capacity of 1,320 megawatts at Stake Ness in Banffshire. This is an excellent addition to the economy of the North-East of Scotland. May we know a little more about that? May we be told a little more about the surveys for a pumped storage development using Loch Lomond as the lower reservoir?
I should like the House tonight to pat the North of Scotland Board on the back and to say to it, "Let us know what you are doing. Know that your existence over the next decade is assured. We will ensure that you prosper well and we will not interfere with what you are doing. Indeed, we will encourage you to do even better".
I turn to the affairs of the South of Scotland Board. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) mentioned our concern about Longannet. Is it not interesting that Longannet, which was initiated by the Conservative Administration in 1963, is now the subject of discussion? It takes that long to plan a station. Similarly Inverkip, which we instituted, will not be the subject of much discussion until 1972 or 1974. In a sense, perhaps, the Under-Secretary of State has more responsibility for answering questions about Longannet than about Inverkip. There is genuine concern, perhaps with pressure from outside and indeed inside the Board, that


Longannet will not be given the consideration that we thought it would be given.
The South Board is embarrassed by the high level of interest rates. It says on page 7 of its Report :
The high level of interest rates was made more burdensome by the necessity not only of borrowing the finance required for new capital investment but of borrowing to cover the repayment of earlier loans. The average interest rate on loans repaid in the year was 6'8 per cent. compared with 9·1 per cent. on the loans which replace them, the difference in interest amounting to £0·4 million in a full year".
It is interesting that the heading to Chapter I of the South Board's Report is "Fight against inflation". This is one on the jaw for the Government. They cannot say, "We have been the Government for only a year. It takes a long time to work these things out." That argument is getting a bit thin. The Report should have started by saying, "Fight against inflation : Government nearly winning". This is a very sad Report from the South Board about all the embarrassments of the present and how it does not see much relief coming in the reasonably near future. Perhaps the Minister will say something to encourage the Board. We should like to hear a bit more about the forthcoming Bill.
I turn to the argument about coal and oil and nuclear energy. The Minister is an absolute dab hand—and I hope that that is a parliamentary expression—at telling us things without giving us the figures and skating over the most difficult situations. For example, he attempted to bamboozle my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) the other night when he talked about the situation concerning Portobello. He gave no figures. He is the man without figures—no targets, no figures, no nothing, just nice, charming sugar-lolly words. But he should give us the figures concerning Portobello. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell can become the referee, he must know the figures. There may be a judgment to be made about the figures from the commercial point of view of the Board and from the social point of view of the Government. I accept that. As a Minister, I have had to confront such situations myself.
But the commercial facts should be known so that we can weigh the matter in the Beeching manner when it came

to giving subsidies on railway lines and in the manner adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in her Transport Act, 1968, namely, that if a subsidy is to be provided, then let it be known and let us know what the community is paying rather than pretend that the economics are this or that when they are not.
I should like the Minister to grasp the nettle instead of making nice noises about the miners and the coal mining industry and expressing anxiety about social matters. The miners of Great Britain have an enormous opportunity ahead of them. We can sell much more coal than we buy if we go into this matter vigorously. The economics of selling coal to electricity stations in Scotland might be different in as much as the attraction of other markets would give a better return for the Coal Board. Mr. Ezra, the new chairman, whom we all wish well, prophesies that he can not only sell coal at home but he can sell more abroad.
In this changed atmosphere, I should like to see new attitudes being adopted towards electricity. Let us get away from the idea that we regard the mining industry paternalistically as an industry which is, sadly, running down, an industry with no great future, and so on. We have had the battle fought over coal versus nuclear energy, coal versus oil, coal versus natural gas—

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is enlarging on an interesting argument about a seller's market, saying that there may be better and more profitable markets, but he should remember that for years the argument has been about price. If he talks about alternative fuels, he must talk about price as well, because the argument against using coal has been on price. Now we hear from my hon. Friend the reverse argument, to some extent, that we can sell elsewhere with the price becoming more favourable.

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend may have a point there, but what I am inviting the Under-Secretary of State to embrace is the fact that coal is no longer in a restrictionist market, that it is entering a phase of expansion, not expansion necessarily in Great Britain but expansion in wider markets. That being so, the economics of this Order and the Bill to


come, and our whole generating system in this country, are affected by the new situation. [Interruption] My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) should be glad about that and rejoice. I am not a referee. I never was, and I do not want to be. I am simply saying that he should rejoice, and I am inviting the Under-Secretary of State to say, in commending the Order to the House, that he will follow it with a Bill which will not merge both Boards but keep them as separate entities. The thermal economics of all fuels are changing, and the last matters which I have introduced are, perhaps, the most significant in terms of changed circumstances that we have seen in the last decade. If the hon. Gentleman says that, I shall be happy to see the Order go through, and my hon. Friends will be joyful, too.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Younger: There was a moment during the last few minutes when I thought I might be able to go out and have a cup of tea and leave hon. Members opposite to it. I shall not try to usurp the new-found and, no doubt, happy position of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) as referee in these matters. I was not quite sure while he was speaking whether his self-appointed position was altogether acceptable to all sections of opinion in the House, but from my point of view I can think of no more suitable, more charming or more balanced person to be the referee, and I look forward to watching the hon. Gentleman at work, although I suspect that it will be pretty hard work when he gets started.
Perhaps I may put right at the outset some misconceptions about the timing of the Order and where it fits into the scheme of things. I mentioned this at the beginning, but some hon. Members, perhaps those who were not able to be here at the commencement of the debate, may not have appreciated the point. The £700 million limit was originally expected to last until 1972, but, as I said, due to inflation and various other factors, it looks as though that limit will be reached towards the end of 1971. So there is a difference there which, though not enormous, is of some significance.
We expect the £700 million limit to be reached towards the end of 1971, and that is why we have a further Order

tonight to raise the limit to £800 million. Also, as there are considerable sums of retention money on construction contracts due to be paid during the next financial year, we expect it to be unlikely that the £800 million final limit fixed by the 1969 Act, which this Order brings us up to, will last beyond the end of 1972.
This draft Order, therefore, provides for the extension of the limit to the end of 1972 up to the statutory maximum of £800 million, and it will probably be necessary for the Secretary of State to introduce legislation next Session fixing a new limit.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked me to say whether the Bill would include a proposal to merge the North and South Boards. No such proposal has come my way. The Bill I mentioned would be to fix a new limit for borrowing powers and nothing else.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is not it a fact that there will be a Bill in the next Session? If there is, can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that both Boards will remain intact?

Mr. Younger: I cannot commit us to having a Bill in the next Session. I have said that it will probably be necessary for the Secretary of State to introduce legislation in the next Session to fix a new limit. The Bill to which I am referring has nothing to do with any proposal the hon. Gentleman may have in mind for merging the Boards.
The general tenor of what the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said related to my remarks earlier about the relationship between having to increase the borrowing limit and whether the industry was able through its income from sales to finance a larger or smaller proportion of its capital investment from its own resources. I made the point that inflation such as we have experienced for the past two or three years reduces the Boards' ability to finance from their own resources. It means a bigger call on borrowing, if investment is to be kept at the level we need, and therefore greater borrowing limits.
The hon. Gentleman asked what was the proportion of borrowing by the North of Scotland Board. The total borrowing of the two Boards against the limit stands


at about £670 million, which is within £30 million of the present limit. The North Board accounts for about £260 million, which is about 40 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly asked about the need for the North Board to have such a relatively high level of investment. It has invested considerably in the past in the highly capital-intensive hydroelectric schemes. The capital cost of generating capacity and transmission for Invergordon is met by the capital contribution of the British Aluminium Company and does not fall upon the electricity consumer.
The North Board has £3·3 million of foreign currency borrowings—8,000,000 European units of account, borrowed in 1969 at 8 per cent. The South Board has £6·3 million of foreign borrowings, 60 million Deutschemark borrowed in 1969 at 8¼ per cent. That is a fairly substantial amount of borrowing, but is not very large compared with the two Boards' programmes.
We welcomed the intervention of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). The hon. Gentleman, who is no stranger to electricity debates, and no stranger to Scottish debates on this subject, asked about the use of natural gas and about the fuel oil tax, which other hon. Members also mentioned. There has been discussion about this tax for many years. Some regard it as an imposition, while some regard it as right that, as some commercial undertakings have to bear it, others should, too. But it is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not for me to say whether there is to be any change in fuel oil tax, or whether there should be. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will note what is said in these debates, as he always does.

Mr. Palmer: I appreciate that it is the Chancellor's responsibility, but my point was the different treatment of gas as against the electricity industry.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separation Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Member is quite right, but this is by no means a unique situation. Many industries pay fuel tax or other tax and find a competitor which does not pay the same tax on a similar or different product. I appreciate the point, but this is not a unique situation.

Mr. Douglas: Mr. Douglasrose—

Mr. Younger: I am sorry, I had better get on. I have many points to which to reply.
I was asked also about the use of natural gas. This is a matter of general fuel policy the aim of which is to have the optimum use of all resources, including this new natural resource, which has come to Scotland and is now in use. With the hon. Member for Greenock, I was pleased to be present at the opening of the first factory in Scotland to be constructed to use natural gas.
The present policy is to concentrate on the premium markets—that is, domestic consumers—where the national benefit is the greatest. Use of natural gas in power stations would be a matter of negotiation between the electricity boards, the Gas Council and the gas boards, which have the statutory right to purchase from producers and whose consent would be required to any direct purchase arrangements. Applications from an electricity board for the conversion of a power station to burn natural gas instead of coal or any other variant of the various fuels would be considered in exactly the same way as requests for conversion to oil-firing are considered—that is to say, taking into account all the possible consequences, including the social consequences of all kinds and the possible social consequences on areas


which are dependent on a great deal of mining employment.
The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire also asked what was the cost to the Boards due to any failures on the part of suppliers, in particular in the context of the failures at Longannet. I know that this is a matter which causes considerable concern to many hon. Members. It has been a great disappointment to the South of Scotland Board that it has had three failures at Longannet during the last few weeks.
The No. 1 generator was shut down about a month ago because failure of a heat exchanger admitted water instead of steam into the turbine, causing damage to the rotors and the casing. More recently, faults developed in the turbines of Nos. 2 and 3 units, both of which probably have bent shafts. The trouble here stems from overheating caused by faulty or overtight glands.
As to future operations, the Board expects that Nos. 2 and 3 units will be repaired and in service towards the end of the year. No. 1 unit, which is more seriously affected, should be in operation early in 1972 and it is hoped that at that time No. 4 unit, which is building, should be completed and start operating.
I must make it clear that responsibility is entirely a contract matter between the Board and their suppliers. This is something that the Board must argue out with their suppliers if the causes and the extent of damage which may have occurred are properly established. It certainly would not be proper for me to interfere or to suggest that either one side or the other was more to blame, if, indeed, blame is attached to anyone.

Mr. Douglas: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman uses the word "interference" circumspectly, but his Department was aware of the contracts and surely knows whether they have penalty clauses concerning equipment or failure to adhere to specification. He ought, therefore, to be able to give us a direct answer whether these causes are covered in the contracts.

Mr. Younger: All contracts contain various provisions of that sort. I cannot tell the hon. Member—I do not think that anyone can yet, not even the people in the Electricity Board—whether the defects or the troubles which have been caused are likely to come within the

ambit of any penalty clauses, damages or anything like that. This is a matter which will have to be left until investigations into what actually happened are more or less complete.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central mentioned contracting and retailing in the electricity industry. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said about this some time ago when he assured representatives of the employees and consumers, that is to say, the chairmen of the electricity consultative committees, in England and Wales that they would be consulted before any action was taken to hive off any part of the industry. I give an entirely similar assurance in respect of the contracting and retailing operations of Scottish Electricity Boards, that is to say, that the consumers' councils would be fully consulted before any decisions were taken. The contracting and retailing activities of the Boards are under review, as the House knows, but we are not yet in a position to say when the review will be completed. I can say only that no decision will be taken until after appropriate consultation with all concerned.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made some interesting comments on the subject of Inverkip. I have no reason to doubt the availability of supplies for Inverkip power station when it eventually comes into operation, but this is entirely a matter for the Electricity Board itself and presumably it is satisfied about the supply position, or it would not be pressing as it is, as is shown by its report, for conversions.
The hon. Member for Motherwell raised the important issue of the practice of the South of Scotland Board of asking for security deposits and so on when making consumer connections. This is a matter for the Board itself, a matter of commercial running, but I recognise that it causes considerable public disquiet from time to time. The Board has a consumers' consultative council and representations may be made to the council at any time. In general, it has been consulted about the Board's schemes now in operation and it has accepted the Board's general policy in these matters. However, it will certainly be ready to consider individual cases which are reported to it.
There have been complaints about the Board's policy of asking for security


deposits or guarantees from new consumers. This is entirely a matter for the Board. Outstanding debts on electricity accounts on 8th April, 1971, amounted to £4 million compared with only £1·5 million a year earlier. Most of this increase was probably due to the period of the postal strike, but £500,000 was six months' overdue, very much in excess of anything which could be attributed to the postal strike.
In 1970–71, £350,000 bad debts had to be written off and in 1969–70 the figure was £423,000. It is to protect other consumers from having to bear these bad debts that the Board has instituted the practice of asking for deposits or guarantees. The Board would be most willing to receive representations of any kind from hon. Members on this subject, but I must repeat that the consumers' consultative committee accepts the Board's purpose in taking such deposits and in general approves the Board's action.

Mr. Lawson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this practice is engaged in by other Electricity Boards?

Mr. Younger: In other Electricity Boards? I could not answer for Boards in England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the relevant Minister about that. However, I am not aware that the North Board has the same scheme as the South Board. Again, if the hon. Gentleman wants further details, I shall write to him about it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the representations which have been made by the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland, which is very concerned about this matter? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to us about it, since we, too, are worried.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the concern. This is the sort of matter which is brought to Members of Parliament, and it is essential for them to have proper facilities to deal with it. I shall be happy to look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Greenock asked for one or two details about the con-

struction programme. He asked about the Foyers scheme, which is a North of Scotland scheme. The construction of the station on the shores of Loch Ness is well under way, and the station is expected to be in commission in 1974. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, it has two 150-MW reversible sets installed in a shaft below the level of Loch Ness. The scheme will use Loch Mhor as the upper reservoir and Loch Ness as the lower reservoir. It will require a labour force of 500 until 1974.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Stake Ness project. I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker), who has been to see me, and from other hon. Members who have raised the matter from time to time that there is concern about the pace at which the project appears to be going ahead. I can assure hon. Members that there has been no hold-back in the process of evaluating the best form that the station shall take. At present the studies as to the best type of station for the job that it will have to do are well advanced. I hope before long to get final estimates and tenders based on the various different alternative models that we are trying to assess. As far as we can see, the project has to be evaluated as to the type of station that it will be. But there will be no delay in going ahead with its construction.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Loch Lomond scheme. That is at an earlier stage of consideration, and there are a number of technical problems. However, the studies are going ahead well and I have reason to think that at the end of the day a scheme will be brought forward.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the site in Banff in any doubt? Can the hon. Gentleman give us any time scale with regard to Loch Lomond?

Mr. Younger: I cannot give a time scale for Loch Lomond. It is at too early a stage to see the likely time scale. There is no doubt about the site at Banff, by which I assume that the hon. Gentleman means the physical site.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Yes.

Mr. Younger: There is no doubt about that. But we are at the stage of trying to work out whether a steam-generating heavy water reactor will be right or whether another form will be best. Within the broad limits of those several alternatives, we are getting on reasonably well with it.
Most of the other points on which we got into a fairly useful discussion, I think, came under the heading of the alleged complaints about interference with which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central said that the Report of the South Board was riddled. Here, both sides of the House are in difficulty. I said earlier that it was our policy to interfere as little as possible with the nationalised industries. I reassure the hon. Member for Motherwell that that is our policy. We want to leave these industries as much as we can to get on with the job and to act commercially as far as they are able.
There is a misconception about what acting commercially means. One or two hon. Members opposite appear to think that acting commercially means being able to put up prices without let or hindrance whenever one feels like it. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that that is how an ordinary commercial undertaking carries on, they cannot have worked for one. If they had, they would have found that there are innumerable reasons for putting up prices and far more reasons why it is impossible to do so, either because one's competitor has not, because the market will not stand it, or because sales will go down, and therefore, the profitability of the business, too. To think that an industry which is nationalised and which has to take into account social factors in its pricing policies is acting uncommercially because of that alone is a complete misconception. Commercial concerns have all kinds of inhibitions about what they can do in these matters. Electricity boards are no exception.
When we come to what the complaint was the matter becomes most interesting. It seemed thatt he hon. Member for Motherwell was pressing me, and also my predecessor who was there to take his medicine, that we should not be interfering with the running of these industries. That struck a sympathetic chord in my mind.
Two things have stuck out in previous debates on these matters. We have had excellent, articulate and persistent requests by the hon. Members for Midlothian, Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) and many others that we should interfere with the antionalised industries on social and on many other grounds. Taking it one stage further, I had always thought that one of the great advantages alleged to be gained from nationalising industries was that the Government could interfere and make them work for social and other reasons. If, on the one hand, the message is that we should never interfere, we cannot fulfil what is alleged by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be one reason for nationalisation. If, on the other hand, we are to interfere, as the hon. Member for Midlothian suggests, I am prepared, as I have often said, to consider requests to change the fuel supply at the power stations, giving the widest possible consideration to all factors, including social factors. This is what we are, and intend to continue, doing.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have already said that where an industry is to operate with other than commercial considerations, as this industry is to operate, it should be done openly. If the industry is being made to subsidise the community, as in many cases this industry was, then it should be done openly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not quarrel with that, but it puts a different light on the argument which he has presented.

Mr. Younger: I will not quarrel with that. This is merely another factor in the difficult triangle of considerations which we have to work out in these matters. However, we cannot get away from the fact that when an industry is publicly owned, as this is, for better or for worse, the Government of the day have certain responsibilites towards it. I am trying to discharge those responsibilities by taking the widest possible view of the public interest.
We have had an extremely interesting debate on all these matters. We may not agree on everything, but I think that we agree that the Order is necessary and desirable and that we wish the Boards every success in their coming years of


activity. I hope that the House will now approve the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

MEDICINES (SURGICAL MATERIALS)

Resolved,
That the Medicines (Surgical Materials) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Alison.]

HOUSING BILL

Order for Committee read.

Committee tomorrow.

RECOGNITION OF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2

RECOGNITION IN GREAT BRITAIN OF OVERSEAS DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS

10.19 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 6, at end insert ' act or '.
The purpose of this Amendment and Amendment No. 3, in Clause 3, page 2, line 11, after 'date', insert 'of the act or ', which I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, indicated would be taken with it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If that meets the convenience of the House, so be it.

Mr. Silkin: It would be convenient for me, at any rate, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of these Amendments is to attempt to resolve a difficulty in the framing of the legislation. It is a difficulty which I believe the Solicitor-General has recognised as a real one, and one which we ought, if we can, to resolve.
The purpose of this legislation is to give effect in this country to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations. The object of that Convention is to avoid what are called "limping marriages"—and I suppose one could also say limping legal separations—that is, the situation in which a man and a woman can be regarded in one country as being divorced, or legally separated, but in another country—and so far as the Bill is concerned this country—as still married and bound to cohabit. We are leading the world in

legislating to give effect to the intent of the Convention.
The difficulty which has arisen, however, is one which springs from the wording of the Convention itself—not that we are bound to follow the precise wording of the Convention; indeed, in the Bill we are seeking rather to go beyond it than to stay entirely with it. The intent of the Convention is, I think, reasonably clear. It is that where a divorce or legal separation is obtained in another State, then that divorce or legal separation, except in certain specific circumstances, which are referred to in Articles 7, 8 and 9, and which are reproduced in Clause 8(2)(a) and (b), shall be regarded as being as valid in other countries as it is in the country in which it is obtained.
There are exceptions, but the wording of the Convention provides what, on the face of it, appears to be a qualification, because it uses the language
obtained in another contracting State",
and
which follow judicial or other proceedings officially recognised in that State and which are legally effective there.
and the Bill has sought generally to follow that language.
The term "judicial proceedings" is, I think, reasonably clear. What is not clear is what was intended by those who drafted the Convention when they spoke about "other proceedings". I think it is clear enough—at any rate I am persuaded so—that they did not mean some other form of quasi-judicial proceedings. I think that they had in mind something wider than that. Indeed, the preparatory discussions which led to this form of wording undoubtedly produced a situation in which it was generally accepted that the wording would be intended to comprehend, for example, divorces of the type of the Muslim talak divorce, which do not involve any form of court proceedings, or anything of that kind. It would probably also be accepted that the legal considerations intended to be comprehended by the Convention were not necessarily the kind of legal separations which are obtained by means of some form of court proceedings.
We are therefore left with the question : what was meant by "other proceedings"?


I take the view that the term "proceeding" connotes a sequence of events rather than a single act or event. The wording of the Convention and the wording of the Bill—which both talk about the "institution of the proceedings"—tend to support that view, yet the talak divorce and similar types of event are difficult to square with that obvious meaning of the term "proceedings". That is where the difficulty lies in the Convention, and we have reproduced the difficulty by using the same words—"judicial or other proceedings"—in the Bill.
We know that we intend to include such forms of divorce as the talak divorce and separation which are not necessarily the result of any form of judicial or administrative procedure, but the wording that we have used, because it follows that of the Convention, does not seem clearly to explain precisely what is intended.
I appreciate that the hon. and learned Member has thought long and deeply to try to find a better form of words which would more clearly express what is intended, because it is more important to give effect to the intent of the Convention than to follow its wording. But I conclude that it is the concept of a sequence of acts or events that is inherent in the word "proceedings" that causes the difficulty.
At this stage we are not concerned with the question whether the act or event that gives rise to a divorce or a legal separation in a foreign State is one that we should recognise. That limitation seems to be the function of Articles 8 to 10 of the Convention and Clause 8 of the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
In Clause 2 we are making the type of process—if I may use that neutral word—which is the subject matter of the Bill as wide as it can be, so that it is subject only to the limitation explicitly provided for in Clause 8, which, in terms, says that
Subject to subsection (1) of this section, recognition by virtue of this Act … of the validity of a divorce or legal separation obtained outside the British Isles may be refused if, and only if
and then follow the circumstances set out in Article 10. What is missing from the Convention and the Bill is the concept of a single act as distinct from a sequence of events, which is understood by judicial or other proceedings. The single act,

which may be judicial or non-judicial so long as it is recognised in the country of origin as giving rise to divorce or legal separation, is that which the Convention intends to be recognised in the foreign State and which the Bill should intend to be recognised here, subject only to the limitations in Clause 8.
If there is any doubt left about the interpretation of the Clause, there is a real danger that we may not be giving effect to the intent of the Convention. I recognise the difficulties of this matter, but the sort of distinction which the Solicitor-General drew in Committee between what the Bill should and what it should not recognise was not logical. The real distinction is between what the foreign country accepts as a divorce or legal separation, provided that it does not conflict with the Bill, and what it does not so accept. If that is so, then one can put the wording right, as the Amendment suggests, to cover not only the sequence of events but the act itself.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has understandably returned to the point which caused him and all of us who have considered the Bill some anxiety on Second Reading and in Committee. The Bill is unexceptionable. It is designed to implement the Hague Convention. We are blazing the trail for other countries by passing these provisions into our domestic law.
It is clear that the draftsmen of the Convention themselves probably did not finally resolve what they meant when they included the words "judical or other proceedings officially recognised" in Article 1. Those words extended as far as was felt necessary by the countries which drafted the Convention. It would not be satisfactory for this House to content itself with saying "At least we have not made it more confused". It is plainly our duty to see that we get it as clear as we can.
The hon. and learned Member has said—I echo this—that it is extremely difficult to find an appropriate form of words to do what we want to do. What we are trying to do is to make it plain that the recognition which is to be afforded under the Bill should not be confined to recognition of judicial proceedings alone. Plainly, we intend to


extend recognition to such things as the talak divorce.
Having reached common ground on the objective, I do not find it possible to accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's second or third shot at amendment as being any more apt or appropriate than the words already in the Bill. The Bill speaks of "judicial or other proceedings," and the Amendment proposes the insertion of words to make it read "judicial or other act or proceedings."I suggest that the inclusion of the words" or other proceedings "at least makes it plain, first of all, that the other proceedings need not themselves be judicial, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts.
It follows that the other proceedings can include administrative proceedings, including possible registration in a Government office or divorce by legislation. It can also include proceedings which do not involve the intervention of an official; a formal series of steps following a strict legal pattern such as those taken in a talak divorce, where the official plays no part and where no official step is necessary to register them.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's point is so far so good, but "proceedings" implies a sequence of measures, a degree of formality and bureaucracy and judiciality which could result in excluding from the Bill some single act taken by the parties resulting in divorce by the country in which that act is being taken. The difficulty is that if one takes a single step like that, an act as opposed to proceedings, or even a proceeding—which was one of the alternatives I thought of at one time—one might arrive at a proceeding so informal as to make it difficult to bring it within the framework of this kind of recognition.
The Bill, and any Bill of this kind, must depend on the possibility of identifying a particular moment of time jurisdictionally at which the act or proceeding can be identified between that act and the jurisdiction under whose law the matter would be valid—

Mr. Silkin: Would the informality matter so long as the country concerned accepted the validity of the divorce or legal separation resulting from it? Is not that the key to the intent of the Convention?

The Solicitor-General: I hestitate to go back to analysing the intent of the Convention, but in terms of finding the key to what is workable and acceptable in this country the point must be that if we are providing for a quick, automatic machinery for the recognition, which is really what the Clauses do, it should be possible to identify quickly and automatically the nature of the act or proceedings which qualifies for recognition and be satisfied that at the time the act or proceeding was taken or was taking place the necessary jurisdictional link of nationality or whatever it may be could be fulfilled.
If one looks at that in the context of the word "act", for example, rather than "proceedings" and then at a judicial act, one immediately runs into possible difficulties in deciding whether the judicial act in question is the service of the petition or the granting of the decree nisi or of the decree absolute. One is not then able to identify it with any clarity because under Clause 3 as it stands we have
… at the date of the institution of the proceedings …".
If we insert
… at the date of the act or of the institution of the proceedings …
we become a little uncertain on that ground.
I suggest to the hon. and learned Member and to the House that the answer to his problem is to say that when we reach a proceeding or act as informal as that which he has in mind, the parties would have to rely on the provisions of Clause 6 which enables a divorce and legal separation which is valid by virtue of a rule of law arising from the domicile of the parties still to be recognised in this country, but it requires it to go through an admittedly rather more complex means of proof and establishment of recognition. But that is the long stop and the safety net, which is sufficient to deal with this problem.
As the hon. and learned Member mentioned, I have considered alternative ways of defining the meaning of "proceedings" by confining them to something in which an official intervenes, which would not be sufficient, or by saying that some formality should be regarded as the only essential for "proceedings", but even that would give rise to difficulty. I


have thought of using the word "proceeding" rather than "proceedings", but I am not sure that that does more than perpetuate or conceal the difficulty.
I hope that the House will accept that there are difficulties about "act"; that, in the context of the Bill and the Convention as a whole, the phrase "judicial or other proceedings" will enable all those divorces which involve formal steps following a strict legal pattern, including certainly talak, to secure recognition under the law of this country and, beyond that, that Clause 6 will operate as a sufficient safety net or long stop, and that the Clause as drafted is the most effective way of dealing with this matter as clearly as we can.
Accordingly, I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 9, at end insert :
(2) For the purposes of this Act a legal separation exists when any legal obligation to cohabit has been terminated.
The Amendment arises out of a difficulty which was expressed in Committee, but a difficulty which is, perhaps, not quite so formidable as the one we have been discussing. The difficulty here is to decide what was meant in the Convention and what is meant in the Bill by the expression "legal separation". Clearly that term can be capable of a wide variety of meanings, from the separation obtained by means of some kind of court order to the separation which is consensual, under which the parties agree not to live with one another again. It is not expressed in either the Convention or the Bill just how far that term is intended to go.
We discussed this in Committee, and as a result the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has taken the utmost trouble over trying to get accuracy and precision about the Bill, was good enough to write to me, and in his letter he said that he had reached the conclusion that
… such a separation connotes some overt step, taken at an identifiable moment of time, which produces (possibly among others) the result that the spouses are no longer under any legal obligation to live together.
10.45 p.m.
I agree with that definition. The Solicitor-General has put it so well that
I think it should be written into the Bill. The wording of the Amendment follows as closely as possible the wording of the hon. and learned Gentleman's letter to me, in that it defines "legal separation" by saying :
For the purposes of this Act a legal separation exists when any legal obligation to cohabit has been terminated"—
that is, when the spouses are no longer under any legal obligation to live together, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says in his letter. There may be other results, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, but this is the critical result. This is what is crucial to a legal separation. How the position has been arrived at that the parties are no longer under a legal obligation to live together does not seem to matter provided that it is, in the words of the Convention and of the Bill, recognised and effective in the law of the country concerned.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be ready to accept his own words by way of annotation of the Bill. It is in this spirit that I offer them to him.

The Solicitor-General: It would be tempting to respond to the tribute paid to these words by the hon. and learned Gentleman by falling over myself with enthusiasm to accept them as an addition to the Bill. The difficulty is that the hon. and learned Gentleman's tribute goes too far and overlooks the qualifications in the wording which I adopted, because I said that a separation was something which produces possibly, among other results, the result that spouses are no longer under any legal obligation to live together.
It would not be appropriate to define "legal separation" in this way. I was not proffering a draft of legal separation. The form of words adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman would, as drafted, include a decree of divorce or annulment, because each of those things would produce a situation when a
legal obligation to cohabit has been terminated".
It is clear that we could not accept the Amendment, because in Clause 4(2), for example, a distinction is drawn between a legal separation and a decree of annulment or a decree of divorce. The definition would not be appropriate as


the hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to draft it by borrowing my own words.

Mr. William Wilson: Has the Solicitor-General thought of this possibility under the Amendment? If adultery is committed, the legal obligation to cohabit has been terminated. Would that come within the wording of the Clause—
the recognition … of … legal separations … which—
(a) have been obtained by means of judicial or other proceedings"?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is speaking of the impact of English law. We would not always be concerned with that. We might be looking at the impact of other systems of law. Any situation which could arise by implication from the law that a spouse was no longer bound to cohabit with her husband, for example, would not be a legal separation arising from judicial or other proceedings. Therefore, it would not be a legal separation for the purposes of the Bill. It might be if we were to adopt the Amendment, because if we could argue on the system of law in question that an obligation to cohabit had been terminated by virtue of a state of fact—namely, adultery—we could argue that a legal separation existed for the purposes of the Act. It may be that that is not what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) intended.

Mr. Silkin: Not only is it not what I intended, but it would not follow because the words are qualified by the following words which the Solicitor-General pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson). The legal separation, however we define it, must have been obtained by means of judicial or other proceedings.

The Solicitor-General: I think that that is probably right; but I suspect that it goes beyond my function to try to resolve the ambiguity which arises from the Amendment. Therefore, I ask the House, if only because I am incapable of understanding all the difficulties of the Amendment, to count that as an additional reason for not enthusing over it and for not accepting it.

Mr. Silkin: It is rather a pity that the Solicitor-General is not willing to accept

the Amendment, although it was founded upon language of his which I accept, and has not been able to put forward a better definition, because in the absence of a better definition—and this is, I understand, the last opportunity there will be to define the term—the expression is left in the indecisive state which we all agreed it bore when we discussed it in Committee.
It is a pity that we have not said precisely what we mean but have left it to the courts to decide what is intended by the term "legal separation", which we all agree can embrace a wide variety of situations, albeit they must all be obtained by means of judicial or other proceedings. The Solicitor-General had his opportunity to cap my Amendment with a better one. I regret that he has not taken it.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

ROADS (LANE DISCIPLINE AND PROCEDURES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The subject which I wish to raise tonight has already come to the notice of hon. Members at various times, but it has not figured recently in debates in the House. It is none the less a subject of increasing importance, and I am for that reason glad of this opportunity to raise it on the Adjournment. I refer to the parts of the Highway Code which deal with road lane procedures, and the question of lane consciousness on the part of the driving public, especially in urban areas, where,


alas, our roads are becoming increasingly congested and lane discipline is all the more important.
Perhaps, after the heady wine of electricity in Scotland, the question of recognition of divorces and legal separations and the other matters debated during the course of Government business today, it might be thought that the subject of this short debate was of minor significance. In fact, however, it is a matter of vital importance for the traffic authorities, for the Department of the Environment, for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see here ready to answer what I have to say tonight, to motorists, to the motoring organisations and to the leading motoring journals. The question of road lane procedures and the way in which this country grapples with it will be of growing importance in the future.
Perhaps it is not a topic in the forefront of most people's minds precisely because of the phenomenon which we have in Britain, that the idea of lane discipline and lane consciousness on the part of drivers is not one to which much thought has been given outside the world of specialists in traffic matters. Yet there are certain factors which, I believe, demand that it be given urgent attention.
Congestion is growing on our urban roads. I hasten to say that I am not here dealing with lane procedures and lane discipline on out-of-town roads and motorways. I am dealing only with lane procedures in urban areas. In London or the other large conurbations of Manchester, Birmingham and so on, the inexorable rise in traffic volume continues. I would be the first to admit that the authorities have done a great deal in using white paint to mark out roads, to delineate lanes and so on in an attempt to improve traffic flow. We have seen what Ministers of Transport of both parties have done to improve traffic flows in, for example, the Greater London area on main spine and through roads. But, none the less, the problem will become increasingly difficult of solution unless a radically new approach and new procedures are adopted for the future.
We are in this country—"blessed" is hardly the word—unfortunately endowed with roads even in the conurbations which are difficult in their shape and design, reflecting

the result of historical accidents, roads with many quirks, awkward curves and turns. We ought to be considering in a far more energetic way than ever before the working out and adoption of a more North American approach to lane discipline and procedures. It is essential that there be a much more self -disciplined approach on the part of the British motorist to what constitutes a traffic lane, a two-lane road and a four-lane highway.
I think it fair to say that in urban areas the British driving style is often opportunistic and undisciplined in this respect. As individuals—this has been borne out by psychological investigations—when we are behind the wheel of the motor car we each feel that we are the best driver on the road. I am sure that all hon. Members have experienced this opportunistic and casual approach to traffic lanes shown by other drivers both ahead and behind them—cutting in, overtaking, and not obeying the lines seperating different lanes, and so on.
The authorities have been, naturally, inclined to say that the present system is, perhaps, though marginally deficient, capable of continued improvement on the margin, and they have been reluctant to say that we need radical changes. It is the argument for radical changes that I am attempting to put forward now.
A special study group should be set up within the Department as a matter of urgency to consider the whole question of lane discipline and procedures on our increasingly over-burdened urban roads. Its terms of reference might include the adoption of American-style continuous lines rather than the dotted lines we now have to separate the lanes of our urban roads. Although they would involve additional expenditure on paint, continuous white lines would have a much better psychological effect in dividing lanes. The motorist through other propaganda means, a revamped Highway Code and a suffer driving test, should be much more conscious of the difference between lanes. He should have the feeling that each lane is much more of a separate road than the average motorist now regards it in London and other large cities, so that a change of lane is much more of a major decision.
Not all roads in London are suitable for a multiplicity of lanes. Many would be suitable only for single lane. But


they need to be delineated much more clearly and less haphazardly, even if the roads are not homogenous and harmonised as in North America, with its squares and block-by-block separation of junctions.
Continuous white lines should also be extended to the areas around roundabouts. It is a common experience for many motorists to be cut out at roundabouts by a driver who is not aware of the mentally-induced dividing area on a roundabout with more than one lane. This is a complicated matter which needs careful thought.
A number of other items must be coupled with a much stricter and more conscious lane discipline. That is why I also advocate, although reluctantly, the need to consider much stricter parking restrictions on heavily congested, overburdened urban roads. If the authorities are not strict enough about parking on single yellow lines one lane of a two-lane road can often be immobilised for far too long.
It has become increasingly dangerous to have bollards to divide the traffic where no junction is involved. An obvious example in the centre of London is Shaftesbury Avenue, which has bollards all the way up. Many streets in London are characterised by their narrowness, and cars on the point of overtaking must brake sharply to avoid bollards. They reflect a much more leisurely age of traffic and are not relevant to the need for a much faster, more disciplined, steadier, much more conscious flow of traffic in lanes, particularly in narrow streets.
I suggest that we should also have flashing, continental-style traffic signals at night, instead of the red, amber and green lights—not at all junctions, but here the heavy flow of daytime traffic diminishes to a suitable degree. It could not be the normal amber light because of the existing Belisha beacons. It would go a long way to maintain a reasonable speed of traffic flow at such junctions at night, and traffic would no longer be held up excessively. I am sure that it is the common experience of many hon. Members, as they drag themselves off reluctantly from the House of Commons at night on their way home, to find that they are delayed at junctions with no traffic coming in the opposite direction.

I am well aware of the departmental arguments against the use of this kind of Continental system : that our lights are vehicle-actuated and the Continental lights are time-based and, therefore, the whole system is different. It simply is not true, however, that one is never delayed for a excessive period at quiet junctions late at night because our lights are, apparently, vehicle-actuated. It just does not work like that. The fault is not mechanical but is in the way that the lights are constructed.
Next—and this is the reason for part of the title of this debate—the Highway Code needs to be revamped to induce a much greater lane discipline and lane consciousness, on the North American pattern. As a visitor from time to time to North America, I have been impressed to see the very restrained way in which drivers there use their lanes, regard them as separate roads and regard a change from one lane to another as a major and important decision necessitating a long flashing signal, in contrast to the jumping from lane to lane which is so characteristic of motoring in London, Birmingham and elsewhere.
The Highway Code has a very weak section on pages 11 and 12 dealing with lines and lanes. It is weak in two respects, because generally the Highway Code is not mandatory in the legal sense, although it may be taken into account under the Road Traffic Acts in litigation which might arise from careless or dangerous driving. It is not mandatory. Perhaps that is the right basis for the Code in the future. None the less, there is, presumably, the right balance between those things which are enforceable legally through litigation and prosecution by the police and the Home Office and something that is merely advisory and gives friendly suggestions and tips about good driving. That is why I find, with some reluctance, because other sections of the Code are admirable, that the section on lines and lanes is pathetic and weak. I very much hope that the Department of the Environment will seriously consider strengthening that section. This applies not to motorway lane discipline but only to urban areas.
To give a quick example, paragraph 56, on page 11, of the Code, states :
Do not wander unnecessarily from lane to lane. If you need to move into another lane, first use your mirror.


That compares very badly with the equivalent Highway Code in many states of the United States of America and many provinces of Canada, which have a full-blooded section on lane discipline. I admit that their physical conditions merge more happily with their highway codes. Nevertheless, they have a 100 per cent. exhortation to maximum lane discipline and lane-consciousness. That is what I wish to advocate tonight.
For that reason also, I put forward the suggestion that the driving test should have a much more important component devoted to it—either by oral interrogation or written examination, as often applies in the American states-dealing with lane-consciousness. The need to hammer home lane-consciousness and lane discipline will surely mean the difference between bearable and unbearable congestion, not only in the rush hours—and we all see how heavily overburdened our urban roads are, particularly in the Greater London area—but outside the rush hours and until late at night.
The imposition of a much stiffer policy, coupled with the right sanctions and, if necessary, the need for careless driving to embrace also bad lane discipline, would go a long way to improve what will be an increasing problem in the future and with which we are dealing now only at an early stage. It is with these things in mind that I have raised the subject on the Adjournment tonight.

11.10 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I shall intervene only for a minute, and I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for allowing me to do so. I shall make only two points. First, I would support what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said about traffic signals at night, but I would add Sundays and Saturday afternoons as well when the same trouble occurs.
My second point concerns overtaking on motorways. I would ask the Under-Secretary if rule 116 could be amended to allow overtaking on the inside lane when traffic is clinging unnecessarily to the middle lane, which I find happens frequently on the Ml. If one wants to overtake a vehicle in the middle lane one has to go across to the outside lane to do so

and then back to the inside lane, which is inconvenient and perhaps dangerous to traffic using the inside lane.

11.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has done the House a service in raising this matter, and in doing so in so eloquent and well-informed a manner. I pay tribute to the way in which he has done his homework on this important subject.
I do not know whether the British are more or less lane-conscious or more or less disciplined in their respective lanes than people in other countries. I know that whether or not we are better or worse than the Germans, the Americans, or anybody else, we are not good enough, and I agree with my hon. Friend in stressing that. The essential point is that in this country we do not, for the most part, cut in or barge other people about on the pavements or in the home, but somehow when we get into a car far too many are inclined to barge about and to cut in and change lanes in front of other people. Apart from being dangerous, it is exceedingly selfish and bad-mannered, and I am sure the House should record its condemnation of those who behave in that fashion on the roads.
Lane discipline is important for two main reasons : safety and proper traffic flow. The two go together, particularly in urban areas, because if every driver is keeping to the rules traffic has a better chance of moving more smoothly and more safely, since drivers are not having to cope with the unexpected. I will take this opportunity of offering to the motoring public a short list of do's and dont's, and in this I hope that I can carry my hon. Friends with me. Do not change lanes unless you have to. Once in your lane, stay in the middle of it and do not wander about. Do not use the right hand lane just because you are travelling fast. It is there for overtaking. It is not there to be used as a speedway. Finally, if you must change lanes, check on the traffic behind. Look in the driving mirror and signal your intention in good time to the traffic behind you.
My hon. Friend referred to the Highway Code. The rules of this game are laid down clearly in rules 50 to 62. There


is a separate section on motorways in rules 112 to 116. I note what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not agree that the Highway Code in this respect is pathetic or weak. However, I will consider his points carefully when we come to the next issue of the Highway Code. There is another source of traffic advice in the driving manual published by my Department for the modest price of 62½ new pence. It is called "Driving" and goes into more detail than is possible in the Highway Code.
My hon. Friend referred to the American lane system. Having had a good deal of personal experience of driving in the United Slates for about 12 years, I am bound to say that traffic conditions there are very different from those in most of our towns and cities. American towns mostly have the square or rectilinear pattern, and most of the American traffic is more homogeneous than ours, that is to say, their cars are more likely to be of the same size and there is nothing like the same mixture of vehicles of different performance plus a whole medley of public transport, lorries, motor bikes, cyclists and so on. This in turn must mean that American speeds tend to be more uniform and consistent than those on British roads. Consequently, the need to overtake, which is responsible for much of the lane changing in this country, occurs less frequently. By the same token, a ban on lane changing is less easy to enforce in this country than it may be in the American situation.
My hon. Friend referred to the driving test as a means of educating drivers in proper lane discipline. The routes over which our tests are conducted are naturally conditioned by the sort of roads near the test centres, but I assure my hon. Friend that we do our best to ensure that all driving test routes include roads on which there is a good mixture of traffic and where lane discipline can be and is tested. I assure him that any serious fault in this respect—lane wandering, changing lanes without proper precautions, or selecting the wrong lane for turning—is recorded against the applicant and as such can frequently involve failure.
My hon. Friend mentioned lane markings. Here I am bound to disagree with his suggestion that we might use mandatory solid white lines on our roads to enforce lane discipline. A line of this

type is being used to mark lanes reserved for buses, and there is great scope for bus priority lanes in our crowded urban environment. As a general rule, it is right to reserve solid lines for dangerous sites on two-way roads. The double white line system is well understood in this country and commands a high level of general obedience. It is questionable whether the same respect could be maintained if the full force of the law were applied generally to all lane lines regardless of whether the need for them was clear to the motoring public. Anything which devalued the impact of our double white line system would be a very doubtful gain from a road safety point of view. But that is not to say that the present road marking system is fixed down to the last detail. We are always looking for improvements to meet changing needs and I am perfectly happy to consider some of my hon. Friend's suggestions, including his suggestions for radical change. I will consider, although I do not give any undertaking, his suggestion for a working party.
My hon. Friend suggested that traffic bollards could cause more danger than they were worth, and he referred especially to Shaftesbury Avenue. I should like to consult the Metropolitan Commissioner about that, although with so many tourists in the middle of London, using roads all over the place, there is something to be said for pedestrian refuges, even in Shaftesbury Avenue, and we have to remember the pedestrian as well as the vehicle. I have looked at various ideas for sanctuary lanes and raised strips, but none gives the same protection to pedestrians as does the bollard, and nor would they separate opposing vehicles so effectively. But, again, we are looking at the design of bollards because, with cars tending to be designed with a lower eye-line for the driver, it may be possible that the size and location of bollards can be done rather differently from today.
As for traffic signals, my hon. Friend has said that, for the most part, we have vehicle-actuated signals in this country. Our fixed-time cycles are normally satisfactory during peak traffic conditions, but no one can deny that, when the traffic is light, they can and do cause delay. Nearly all of them being capable of vehicle actuation, a problem has arisen recently, namely, that with the very large


increase in the volume of traffic, there has been a great deal more heavy wear and tear on the rubber surface tubing which actuates the signals. I am sorry to have to say that in many instances, because of the heavier wear and tear, the vehicle actuation is not working at present, and this is the cause of a good deal of the delay.
Fortunately, an improved maintenance service has been negotiated recently with the signal companies, and I hope that the new system which is coming into use shortly will be adopted by all local authorities so that traffic signals with pneumatic detectors will get back once again to full vehicle actuation and that that will cut down delays.
My Department has developed an improved form of detection, using what are called inductive loops buried beneath the road surface. Each loop is buried three or four inches beneath the carriageway surface. When a vehicle passes over it, its electrical characteristics change, and the change can be detected by electronic equipment. A buried inductive loop can recognise either a vehicle passing over it or, alternatively, a stationary vehicle standing on it. This information is then used by the traffic signal controller to recognise traffic movements and traffic demands.
The inductive loop is not widely known, but it performs a function similar to that of the pneumatic detector. However, being buried beneath the carriageway, it is not subject to the same wear and tear. Therefore the problem of its wearing out does not arise. It is a more reliable detector than the pneumatic type, and it should meet some of the problems of delay to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
My hon. Friend also spoke about parking and waiting restrictions. I agree entirely that the problem arises very often

from sheer unscrupulousness and selfishness on the part of the few who place the many at great inconvenience and some risk. I hope that we are all clear that, while yellow lines prohibit parking, genuine loading to adjacent premises is permitted unless the more restrictive marks known as "blips" are also present on the kerb. Local authorities have quite wide powers to control loading, but many selfish drivers take advantage of the exemption for loading at the expense of delays to their fellow drivers. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the selfishness and sheer bad manners of those who park and wait illegally at the expense of their fellow motorists.
Recently, the Metropolitan Police Commissioners have reminded drivers that exemption from waiting restrictions applies only to vehicles which are actually being loaded or unloaded. It is right to underline the warning of the Metropolitan Police Commissioners that, where this is not apparent, drivers must expect enforcement action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) raised a special point about overtaking on motorways. It was a valuable contribution, as all my hon. Friend's contributions on the subject area. I shall be writing to him about it.
Inevitably, in the time available to me, I have had to deal summarily with the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East. I hope that I have said enough to convince him that we in the Department—

The Question having keen proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.